lol! I don't recognize the image. Which show is it from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Printable View
lol! I don't recognize the image. Which show is it from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
Cool. Might check it out sometime.
My point is not about alignment because its worng, but about the frame animation that's overlaps the stairs artwork for using recicling animation assetsQuote:
Originally Posted by Lion
This webpage collects contemporary reviews of older games. With the exception of Gamepro, Bloodlines was received very well by critics at release, even better than Super/IV.
http://www.defunctgames.com/reviewcr...-think-in-1994
The GamePro writer was easily the closest to the truth. The others were clearly in Konami's pocket, writing gushing nonsense that had little to do with reality. And that EGM dude was a true marvel:Quote:
Originally Posted by profholt82
"I admit it. Konami is the king of Castlevania games."
O.o
I really liked that when the SNES came out, some developers began to produce the level 16-bit pixelart that should have been common all along. Super GnG particularly stood out for having assets with the kind of artwork you'd expect from a Capcom arcade game, along with what I felt should be the minimum level of shading and detail. The color could've been more vibrant, but it still struck that solid minimum level of what my friends and I had been calling "glowy" graphics for years (which made the SMS much more attractive than NES). You can still feel how the assets are formatted for a modest sized cart and SNES hardware, but it was the kind of visuals we'd expected from the better arcade ports, only for an original console game. Magical Quest was another stand out title in that aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barone
Many early SNES games had chunks of artwork which more generous than had become acceptable up till that point, often with good coloring and shading. I really liked that aspect of those particular SNES games and was still influenced by game mag hype, so I went into Super Castlevania IV biased to favor it. It was one of the few times I was so shocked by how terrible a major game like that turned out to be. It's full of sloppy artwork-lite tile assets that obviously had no thought put into how they would all work together. As much thought was put into the awkward coloringThat kind of gibberish mish mash was the style of the original game and the third game actually did a much better job of working in that style with decent looking results. Only Rondo ever pulled it off right while looking great and feeling right and true to the series. Experiencing Rondo made me think "So this is what they were shooting for all along".
Castlevania IV looks like a poor European developed Amiga game. All of the artwork looks very awkward, but especially the sprites. The very minimal animation on the sprites is that much more awkward. The classic horror film theme is completely broken by the ugly enemies and bosses. How do fuck up a skull so bad?
The misguided 'trying too hard to be next gen' design of everything reminded me of Sword of Sodan. But at least that game had real artwork in it. You could picture someone drawing out the sprites in Sword of Sodan, but no Castlevania IV.
The awkward stiff gameplay and stage design is what I'd expect from a budget TurboGrafx-16 game. At least Ghost Manor plays like Wizards & Warriors. Castlevania IV's biggest crime is how un-Castlevania it is, while still not feeling remarkable or unique. The jiggle whip was a terrible idea and the grappling gameplay has the laziest unimaginative implementation. A game should attempt such ambitious things unless the developer can pull it off well enough to justify it. The checklist of obligatory SNES hardware effect scenes were just insulting to SNES and Castlevania fans, even at such an early point in the library. If Castlevania IV had been a day one launch title, we could have giggled and forgiven them, while waiting for Konami to get their shit together and produce a real 16-bit game. Instead the masses continue to worship it and reverse engineer it's components to argue that the same things they criticize in other games is actually genius when the right names are attached.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black_Tiger again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black_Tiger again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black_Tiger again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black_Tiger again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Black_Tiger again.
Damn.
You're one of the few guys who know how to make insightful posts in here and from which I can learn really interesting things. I've enjoyed the hell out of them more and more as the years go by.
"Super GnG particularly stood out for having assets with the kind of artwork you'd expect from a Capcom arcade game"
I totally agree about this, it really looks great. It's mind-boggling to me how few SNES games have a good level of detail given all its color-related capabilities.
Lol I wish I could unsee some pictures from this thread. Can never play it again without the stairs "bug" popping up to my eyes. It feels weird for me that they spent some time building graphical features like the tower, the water reflections, etc, but couldn't get something so basic like the player character positioning on the ground right.
I love this game for its gameplay. The movement speeds feel faster than the SNES games and I think it makes everything more dynamic and fair to the player.
I actually enjoy Dracula X a lot for what it is (never played Rondo and always hated SC4 controls and platforming), but sometimes its gameplay can be annoying because everything is so slow.
I still think you guys are too harsh on SC IV, not that you're wrong about any of your criticisms mind you, just that complaining about "checklist of obligatory SNES effects" is nonsensical. SNES fans drool all over those, the game should have had even more if anything. You guys are looking at it too much through Mega Drive/TurboGrafx lenses :)
I personally think Axelay would have been 10x better without that silly perspective effect, but that's not the case for normal SNES fans. Pointless "Mode 7" effects are part of the experience (even when not actually Mode 7).
I also wish Bloodlines didn't have any of the stupid effects they put in, they're not even particularly well done. They wasted time on those when they could have fixed the damn stairs instead.
Dracula X only bothered with crazy special effects on the very first stage. However that flame effect is drop dead gorgeous and I really feel like it adds to the game, which is more than can be said about the effects in Bloodlines and SC IV.
Unfortunately the rest of the game is extremely plain (far less parallax than Rondo on a machine with 3 native background layers) which creates a huge contrast with that first stage.
SNES fans are usually stupid (no, I don't mean everyone who likes it is stupid; but the actual SNES fans), so I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
This is also true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
The worst part IMO is that they are done over weak artwork. The scene with water reflection is a glaring example.
Well, he's not wrong. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion
And by GamePro writer, you mean the guy who said this?:
Quote:
One wonders how Konami could make games so perfect in heart, body, and soul as Castlevania I through IV, and then drive a stake through the Genesis version. The Bloodlines run dry.
To be fair, some of the effects in SCIV do have a legitimate gameplay function, like the spinning room or the swinging chandeliers. Sure, gameplay-wise, the latter could have been done without the rotation, but why would the mode7 approach not be preferable? And the former was, I believe, something that really hadn't been done before, at least to my knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl
And yeah, I love that flame effect in Dracula X. Gives the stage a nice visual punch. None of the effects in Bloodlines added that much to the atmosphere or had a comparable visual impact. The most impressive one imo was probably the collapsing bridge segment in the final stage. I like that one. The much praised swaying tower map, on the other hand, is really weird in how the foot of the tower apparently follows you up as you climb it. Seriously, the swaying angle never changes no matter how high up you go. It looks really strange.
Haha, yeah, the first four are definitely not perfect, and the MD game isn't THAT bad. But at least that review seemed to echo a disappointment that I can understand, even if he does go a bit far. And it still seems more honest than the other ones, that Konami clearly bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
Those are probably the ugliest, most annoying parts of the game. It would be better without them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion
Fair enough. I haven't actually played them all that much myself beyond one or two attempts, the game quickly gets too frustrating for my tastes, so I rarely play beyond the first two or three stages. I do appreciate the ideas though, especially the spinning room is neat in theory. Same for the swaying tower effect in Bloodlines btw; it's the sloppy execution and general inconsistency with the rest of the stage maps that bothers me there, not the idea itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamahl