Sign in to follow this  
EdgeCrusher

Castlevania Judgement for Wii

Recommended Posts

For some reason I'm envisioning an enhanced variation of "No More Heroes" combat system. Something along the lines of motions causuing specific combos ala specific strokes within a really short window of time to cause devastating damage. Alucard's Ball of Destruction anyone..? Dracula's Blood Moon attack from PoR. Heck maybe we'll see retconned characters as well like Sonia...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heck maybe we'll see retconned characters as well like Sonia...

Very doubtful. Iga made clear his hate of Legends, and while his finally including a female as a lead in Order of Ecclesia might be a big step for him...I doubt he's going to ever give up his old grudges.

The only characters I ever see him possibly including from games he's previous retconned would be the N64 games. He's expressed the least amount of animosity towards those those two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He needs to get off his woman-hating ass and unretcon Sonia. She has a lot of untapped potential.

emphasis on untapped :lol:

Seriously though I never knew he had a grudge on Legends. At most it was a simple yet solid game. Reminded me a whole lot of the original NES Castlevania with a couple of enhancements. Challenge was balanced and hell, I still remember a couple of tracks from it that echo within my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get right down to it, the reason Iga hates Legends so much (beyond the fact he didn't have any part in it's creation, like most of the games he's retconned) is because he never believed there should be a female Belmont as a lead character. He blamed it on his belief that "Well, because of the timeframe...women wouldn't be in a position of authority and shouldn't be...blah blah."

I loved it when people denounced calls of Iga being a chauvinist, despite him making a hard case for people not to think as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He blamed it on his belief that "Well, because of the timeframe...women wouldn't be in a position of authority and shouldn't be...blah blah."

There's not a whole lot of room for "It's the time frame" excuse as he has placed the series into the future partially. Could easily have a role for the 1999 War despite Julius being the main major character.

The 1999 war... What does that term mean for Castlevania..? Did such an event occur in secret, beyond the knowledge of the general populace..? Or was it one of those events where it was a global event where after it ended memories of it ever occuring were some how erased from all except those involved with it ala Persona 3/FES..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you get right down to it, the reason Iga hates Legends so much (beyond the fact he didn't have any part in it's creation, like most of the games he's retconned) is because he never believed there should be a female Belmont as a lead character. He blamed it on his belief that "Well, because of the timeframe...women wouldn't be in a position of authority and shouldn't be...blah blah."

I loved it when people denounced calls of Iga being a chauvinist, despite him making a hard case for people not to think as such.

It's not even a question of chauvinism as much as it's outright misogyny(apart from him hating everything he never touched... He's like an unrealized Tomonobu Itagaki). There is no reason to retcon anything from the Castlevania canon at all, and Sonia was an up and coming(har har) character that had a lot of story development as well as the vampire killer AND magical powers. Hell, if you look at the introduction for CV3(which includes IGA's favorite Belmont no less), it says that the Belmonts were exiled from their home due to fear of their magical abilities ala Sonia. What about her relationship with Alucard? Clearly that could go somewhere. If anything, the fact that Sonia WAS a woman only reinforces the concept of exile being that she could have easily been deemed a witch and burned at the stake. So she fled with her son and ended up training him to be one of the most badass Belmonts around.

I mean shit, is IGA that big of a moron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean shit, is IGA that big of a moron?

For fear of inciting another bout with the "Iga's the heart and soul of Castlevania!" fanboys, I......no wait, I honestly don't care if I throw down with them.

Iga means well, he does. I think he's honestly trying to do what he thinks is right by the series. However, he's not anymore. Early-on he did alright, but by taking things out of canon simply because HE deems them as not being able to fit in the timeline (despite the fact they did before he came along, and even with his games like SotN and Harmony)....he's doing more harm than good. Castlevania Judgement is a clear-cut sign of him losing his way. He says he's trying to do right by the series and keep things canon, but then throws us a game that can't possibly be canon and a game that honestly is putting too much risk onto a "make or break" scenario.

Sonia was a good character. You honestly can't go through the entire Belmont history, and expect me to believe there wasn't at least ONE female Belmont that was the only one around at the time of Dracula throwing down. What happened if no male Belmont's were born in a generation of Dracula being resurrected? An older more feeble Belmont male would take up the fight? When there's a perfectly good young female right there? Please. Sonia got shafted not only by Iga, but in the fact that her game was lacking mechanically. (but was otherwise pretty decent)

Schwaltz...we'll have to find out whenever Iga decides to *finally* unveil the Battle of 1999, but my guess is the battle was more than likely isolated to Europe, and the Vatican and other supernatural orders (Ecclesia maybe still around?) Did everything to keep it out of the mainstream for fear of panic. I'm currently work on my own Castlevania webcomic idea that I'm hoping to go into my interpretation of how things might have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you get right down to it, the reason Iga hates Legends so much (beyond the fact he didn't have any part in it's creation, like most of the games he's retconned) is because he never believed there should be a female Belmont as a lead character. He blamed it on his belief that "Well, because of the timeframe...women wouldn't be in a position of authority and shouldn't be...blah blah."

I loved it when people denounced calls of Iga being a chauvinist, despite him making a hard case for people not to think as such.

It's not so much chauvinism, as it is short sighted.

Since when did reality play a predominant role in Castlevania? It's about vampires, werewolves, upside-down castles, some guy with a whip, and candles that somehow turn into hearts. His reasonings were as moronic then as they are now. Rights and social status have nothing to do with having a women be a lead character... to have some huge undertaking that she knows only she has the ability/power to handle. I don't design or create games, and I can see that. So what can't he?

As for his ditching various games because he had nothing to do with them, that to is imbecilic. People give Marvel, DC and them shit for pretending this or that didn't happen, and rightfully so. It makes little sense, and is an easy way out. Castlevania may have a somewhat convoluted history in terms of a time line, but it's not that hard to make reasonable sense out of. His move to strike games from existence is only making things even more messed up, and I look forward to the day when he steps down, and someone else comes along who won't shit on the works of those before him, and actually at least tries to line all the games up... officially.

Edit: This isn't me lambasting you, Sindra. I'm just addressing Iga's "views".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: This isn't me lambasting you, Sindra. I'm just addressing Iga's "views".

Hey, I'm totally agreeing with you Coop. I too believe he was simply acting like a spoiled child who was handed the keys to the Castlevania kingdom, and got rid of whatever he didn't like that he didn't work on. As sad as it is, I'm hoping Judgement bombs so badly, Konami starts thinking about either having him work with something else in tandem, or brings in someone new to take the reigns for a game...and then see how it goes. The series needs new blood with new vision.

Can I tell you, Iga *almost* got rid of Bloodlines too, but more than likely refrained because Yamane would have probably gone batshit on him for striking out a game that was her first in the CV series. I can tell you, if he had gone through with it though...I would have probably sworn off the series right then out of spite for his blatant stupidity.

Rad, I kinda agree the 1999 game should be an RPG of sorts, where you not only play as Julius, but play as some other characters in certain parts of the game for a time. (Alucard, a Belnades perhaps, etc.) More interaction with NPC's too. The game needs to be epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But here's the kicker: I thought Lament of Innocence was a good game that just had two or three crippling flaws.

The biggest problem obviously, was the level design, which while repetitive designs might work in the 2D Castleloids, they don't really translate that well to 3D. More variety in level design. For that matter, more levels period. We had a few cool spots, but there were like what? 6 different levels. The game pretty much looked the same in every room.

Another big problem was the backtracking you had to do to get certain items that were for all intents and purposes worthless. The relics were pretty lame and didn't really do much except the rare ones that you had to get by fighting hundreds of the same enemy in the only room in the game they ever appeared in. Sure, it's easy to backtrack in 2D, but it's a pain in the ass in 3D, especially when it's long, boring, and unrewarding. A warping system would have also been nice.

Finally, we have the combat. I think Iga was really trying with it, but he just couldn't deliver. It's just not rewarding to the player to be able to pull an enemy towards you if you're just gonna unleash a string of whip attacks anyway. Let's see some more weapons and a deeper combat system. The whole concept of different orbs giving different powers to subweapons was great. let's keep that, but add a few refinements here and there. How about dual sword and whip play? Think about pulling an enemy to you by using the R trigger or Wiimote, then to unleash a flurry of sword strikes to literally slice and dice the skeleton? How about being able to whip weapons out of enemies hands or bringing back swinging?

If Iga really wanted to, he COULD realize that awesome 3D game, but instead he keeps pumping out 2D vanias which eventually WILL end up stale. It's not that he's uncreative, but rather that he's a lazy asshole who doesn't want to admit it and instead uses lameass excuses that only serve to make him look like more of a lameass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, I'm totally agreeing with you Coop. I too believe he was simply acting like a spoiled child who was handed the keys to the Castlevania kingdom, and got rid of whatever he didn't like that he didn't work on. As sad as it is, I'm hoping Judgement bombs so badly, Konami starts thinking about either having him work with something else in tandem, or brings in someone new to take the reigns for a game...and then see how it goes. The series needs new blood with new vision.

Can I tell you, Iga *almost* got rid of Bloodlines too, but more than likely refrained because Yamane would have probably gone batshit on him for striking out a game that was her first in the CV series. I can tell you, if he had gone through with it though...I would have probably sworn off the series right then out of spite for his blatant stupidity.

Yeah, I was dumbfounded enough as it was when he wrote off a handful of games, but ditching Bloodlines? That would have been almost unforgivable.

As for Iga, I too would love to see someone else step in and try their hand at the series. I give Iga credit for what he did, as it resulted in some great games. But I feel his touch has grown a bit stale after so many entires under his watch. I'd personally like to see something with stages again. Branching stage progression paths, stages with more than one way to the end, perhaps different helpers at different times like in CV III... you know, the type of game that hasn't really been seen much since Rondo. I'm sure Iga could probably do it if he took his time, but even so, I'd rather see someone who doesn't have the baggage he does (comments, actions, past games, etc.) give it a whirl. I'd also like to see challenge return, as the Castleroids have rarely been very difficult.

Iga gave the series a shot in the arm a decade-plus ago, and it worked. But I feel the series has reached a point where it needs an injection again, and I'm not sure Iga has another syringe with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. Iga was good for a few games, but could have (and should have) stopped at Aria. (I do like Dawn, but that's it) It's time for some new blood to be introduced - a visionary who loves the series as much, but has new ideas that could revitalize the franchise.

I'd say as much as Iga revitalized the franchise, but lets face it - the franchise wasn't doing as poorly as it is now when Iga came along with the team working on Symphony. The only hiccup they'd had was the making of and release of Dracula X in America rather than a ported Rondo. That was it. Everything else was fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say as much as Iga revitalized the franchise, but lets face it - the franchise wasn't doing as poorly as it is now when Iga came along with the team working on Symphony. The only hiccup they'd had was the making of and release of Dracula X in America rather than a ported Rondo. That was it. Everything else was fine.

I'm still curious to know who labeled C:DX a port... Konami, or the fans/magazines.

But you're right, the series was doing fine before Iga came along. Each release (including C:DX IMO) was an enjoyable game with a new trait or two (usually), despite retreading Simon's original adventure a few times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still curious to know who labeled C:DX a port... Konami, or the fans/magazines.

But you're right, the series was doing fine before Iga came along. Each release (including C:DX IMO) was an enjoyable game with a new trait or two (usually), despite retreading Simon's original adventure a few times.

I didn't say Dracula X was a port. It was more like a half-port, since things were altered from Rondo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say Dracula X was a port. It was more like a half-port, since things were altered from Rondo.

I wasn't suggesting that you specifically called it that, but over the years, I've read many comments on-line calling it a port in threads, on sites, etc. Things like "The SNES port of Rondo...", calling it a fucked up port, a port this, a port that. I'm just curious to know who started all that. Did Konami say they were porting Rondo, and this was the finished product? Did fans/magazines start calling it a port upon seeing its sprites and other familiar aspects? It's a question I've had for a good while.

But as I said a couple pages back, it never struck me as port-like. A reusing/rehashing of ideas, sure. Undoubtedly. But there were just too many changes for me to see it as a port. That's partly why I've said a number of times around here that it was more like a pseudo-sequel to me.

I guess it's just all in how people choose to see the borrowed ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I feel Castlevania, especially early ones, was way too formulaic. Even now they are threading that ground. PoR was a move away from the formula, with the painting allowing the game to go beyond the original areas.

It's a weakness in the game when you limit yourself to the castle way too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the castle-oriented-ness, but I'd like more outdoors environments. My first Castlevania was Simon's Quest (and it was my only Castlevania for a long time), so lately I've been missing the outdoors environments and the feeling of traveling around a country (however absurdly the countryside may have been organized).

I liked what Portrait of Ruin did, but I would prefer those areas to be integrated into the environment. Because each environment was isolated from the others in Portrait of Ruin, they got a slightly formulated feel to them. You entered, and then walked along a path until you got to the main area (a couple exceptions apply).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no charge for the rifle, ammo, or spy-gear?

You'd need armor-penetrating bullets too. Iga's ego creates a protective shell around him that blocks out anything incoming....including constructive criticism.

I kid. I kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no charge for the rifle, ammo, or spy-gear?

You'd need armor-penetrating bullets too. Iga's ego creates a protective shell around him that blocks out anything incoming....including constructive criticism.

I kid. I kid.

I have an anti-ego aura. People who are pretentious around me lose power like superman in a red-sun tanning bed laced with kryptonite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this