It's really getting annoying how Konami feels it has to reinvent the series just to remain relevant. Castlevania has always been and always should be a part of Video Game history and to screw with its history just to remain relevant is just plain wrong. Does it's history even make sense now BTW? Looking at it from Gabriel's stand-point now, it's looking like his history has screwed everything else up. IOW, if this NEW history is to be taken as the REAL history now, Gabriel is NOW Dracula, and whatever happens from this point on will probably kill off Trevor, AND Sypha... Or is she even in this? I'm so confused! Why can't people just leave the history alone!
The man in charge of Castlevania reveals that forging a new path for the series was the only way to keep it alive. "I don't want it to die."
Even the most cherished series needs a kick in the pants from time to time, according to Konami Producer David Cox. He recently sat down with GameSpot to discuss Mirror of Fate, the upcoming side-scrolling Castlevania for the Nintendo 3DS, and why fans of Koji Igarashi’s games shouldn’t fear the series’ new direction. Along with developer Mercury Steam, Cox wants to focus on the origins of the Belmont’s curse, and the ramifications it has on their offspring with each passing generation.
There are a lot of 2D Castlevanias out there, and fans have pretty clear expectations. Can you explain some of the core concepts that went into developing Mirror of Fate as a 2D Lords of Shadow game?
I'm probably going to get murdered for saying this, but like we said with Lords of Shadow, forget everything you know about Castlevania, because on the surface, it seems like a traditional 2D side-scrolling Castlevania game, but in many ways it's just a continuation of what we did with Lords of Shadow. If people really enjoyed Lords of Shadow , then they'll love Mirror of Fate. It's really like a squeezed-down version of that game.
Our idea with the series is to tell Dracula's story. Ultimately, that's the overarching storyline. Lords of Shadow is Dracula's beginning, Lords of Shadow 2 will be the ending, and this kind of sits in the middle. The purpose of Mirror of Fate is to explain the blood feud between Dracula and the Belmonts. How did it come about? What drives it? It has always been about going to Dracula's castle, killing Dracula; that has really been it. Dracula has always been a one-dimensional guy who just turns up at the end of the game. We really want to explore that character and explore the motivations of that character. How did he become Dracula? Why has he become Dracula? Why are the Belmonts the ones that have to go after him? That's the kind of story we're trying to tell.
Obviously, with a title like Mirror of Fate, it's about how fate and destiny are intertwined with our actions. You know, Gabriel made the decision to become Dracula because of the events in Lords of Shadow and the DLC. Going down this darker path has consequences on his son Trevor, and the things he does have consequences on his son Simon.
I know that you are a big Castlevania fan. How hard has it been trying to balance the game's identity and trying to keep some familiar elements, while mostly going in a new direction?
That has probably been the trickiest thing, honestly speaking. You've got a fan base that's dedicated to Castlevania, just as I was as a fan, but at the same time you've got to do something new. You've got to drive the series forward. You know, I don't want it to die. I want it to stay relevant and popular. Getting that balance right has been pretty tough, but at the same time with respect to Lords of Shadow, I think we took a risk. Even when the game came out, we weren't sure if it was going to be successful or not. It's kind of why we went to handheld because we didn't know what the next step was going to be. We didn't know if the game was going to be popular, so we said, "Let's make a handheld game; you don't need much money." We could do something small in order to carry on the series if necessary. Luckily, the game was successful, and senior management said, "You need to make a sequel." That was great, but we already started the 3DS game, so it was like, "OK, right." Luckily, we had a very rough idea about the arc, but we didn't have the detail, if you know what I mean. So we've got the beginning, and we've got the end, so let's develop the ideas and make it fit within the arc. That's how Mirror of Fate came about.
How do you respect the past while doing something new?
I think you've got to be brave and say we're going to put our mark on it. We are going to do what we think is right. We are going to try and be respectful to the past because I think you've got to, but at the same time, I think we were brave with Lords of Shadow. Some people liked what we did, and a lot of people didn't like what we did, so I think this time it's a bit easier because people kind of know what to expect. They kind of know that it's not going to be like it was before. They know it's going in a different direction, and they've accepted that it's a new universe, that it's a different timeline outside of the traditional timeline. I think it's a little bit easier this time to get that message across, you know, that we're going our own way.
I think we tried, particularly with Mirror of Fate, to meet some of those detractors a little bit further and meet their demands. We felt exploration wasn't as good as it could be in Lords of Shadow; we felt that was a weakness of the game. So when we were designing Mirror of Fate, exploration was much higher up on the list of things we wanted to achieve in terms of the final product. At the same time, we wanted to make sure the combat focus of the title, which is what Lords of Shadow was…we wanted to make sure that element was at the forefront. We don't want people who bought Lords of Shadow to suddenly get something different. They go, "I remember that Lords of Shadow game. It was awesome. But this game, what the hell is this?" We wanted to give them a true sequel, something that felt like it fit within the Lords of Shadow universe. So I think we're trying to straddle, and it's a very fine balancing act, but we aren't slaves to it. If a decision is made that we are going to take this in a different direction, we're just going to do it, you know? That's liberating.
Yes, I think so, especially the story side of it. I think having a bad guy who has some depth to him, where you can kind of understand how he got to this place…at the end of this game, it's a WTF moment--it really is. We show Dracula how he has never been shown before, and I think people will go, "Shit, if I was him, I would be the bloody same." You know what I mean? So we're trying to give a perspective on it. Good and evil is not black and white in real life. Having characters who aren't black and white is really important to this game. I think that's something we've achieved, certainly with Dracula, with Simon, and with Trevor, because they are nuanced characters that have stories to tell, and it's a really interesting story that's really emotional. When you finish it, because you play the game backwards, starting with Simon, then playing as Alucard, then Trevor, it all becomes clear right at the end. That's the reason we did it. The very last scene, you click, and you want to play it again. You'll notice things that seem offhand or you didn't really notice before, and you go, "Aw shit!" It gives the game more depth. That's something we're really proud of with Mirror or Fate. The replayability is fantastic. I can't stop playing it, and I've been working on it for two years.
There's a satisfying conclusion to the arc in Mirror of Fate, but the overarching arc is still there. You can play this game without having played the other. That's something we think is very important. In the first game, you have the story about bringing Marie back, about the god mask. That was the key thing, and it came to a conclusion, but you know there's the arc about how he became Dracula. That's going to be explained a little bit in Mirror of Fate, but more so in Lords of Shadow 2. I hate the word trilogy, but people are already saying that to us. It's going to feel like a whole. There's going to be a satisfying conclusion in Lords of Shadow 2, and everything's going to make sense.
I can still enjoy the older games, so a reboot isn't the worst thing. LoS was gnarly and challenging.
It's funny still, cause the game I grew up loving was never about /story/. Not once have I wondered why Medusa hung out at Drac's castle, or how he lit all those candles...but it sounds like they have an interesting direction towards a story.
The 3DS game looks like it might just be something.
@gargungulunk LOL, how he lit all those candles, I got a kick out of that. Why DID Dracula hide valuable coins inside individually lit candles all over the castle? I guess a future game will have to explain that.
Bad ideas IMHO:
Retelling the origin, and re-retelling it. Consistency for crap's sake! You had Mathias (Leon's friend) in Lament of Innocence become Dracula and that was touted as 'the origin story'. Then you wipe the slate and introduce Gabriel in Lords of Shadow and declare that as 'the origin story' by the end of the game. How about make ONE definitive origin story?
[sarcasm] Also, thanks for breaking up the story across platform exclusives. I can't wait for the WTF moments in LoS2 when people wonder what happened between 1 and 2 and find out that was covered in a Nintendo 3DS title. [/sarcasm]
@Dirk_McHardpeck Uh, you're kidding right? The gameplay was a mess. Story-wise, it made no sense whatsoever... need I go on? Basically all you ended up doing was a reverse of CV 2 and made Gabriel into Dracula somehow. ~_~ Yeah, that made perfect sense... NOT!
@Dirk_McHardpeck Yeah, as far as console releases go, Castlevania has been struggling. Castlevania 64 was awful, but the series was revived by Symphony of the Night on PS1. After that, there was Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness on PS2, both of which weren't very great. I enjoyed Lament of Innocence but it had its flaws and wasn't as epic SotN or LoS. I passed on Curse of Darkness because it just looked bad.
As a long-time Castlevania play, going back to the NES days of my childhood, I absolutely loved Lords of Shadows. It was a breath of fresh air for a series that was dying. My wife, who is not a gamer at all, actually enjoyed watching me play LoS because of the great story and music. That doesn't happen often. It was an overall epic experience and on of my favorite games of this generation.
Unfortunately, I don't own a DS, so hopefully LoS2 will come with Mirror of Fate, or it'll at least be released on PSN.
**so we said, "Let's make a handheld game; you don't need much money." We could do something small in order to carry on the series if necessary. Luckily, the game was successful, and senior management said, "You need to make a sequel." That was great, but we already started the 3DS game, so it was like, "OK, right."
^And there you have it folks. Money talks, bullshit walks. Simple fact of life.
@cyberkyber Don't forget to get rid of the friggin camera angles. For all the beauty LoS had, I would much rather admire it with a free camera.
Failing to identify what made a franchise works is "keeping it relevant" now it seems.
I can't even be slightly happy about this as the ongoing Lord of Shadow train wreck is preventing an IGA Castlevania for 3DS.
@WeWerePirates I sure hope there''s enough of the original spirit in Mirror of Fate to wipe Lords of Shadows' mistakes away. I tend to doubt it though. It's name is still in it's title. ~_~ Although, IF it can retain enough of the original games' ideals, which it looks like it could, it might actually do pretty well.
He's wrong... It doesn't need to be reinvented, it just need to be fun to play (proven mechanics, good design and good music).
Mix a Castlevania with the incredible animation of Dust and you have a game everyone will play.
I've always been a fan of the Castlevania franchise regardless if it's on a console or hand. and with a few exceptions (including the terrible N64 game and the ones that came out on the ps2,xbox) the series in general has always been relevant.
my four top favorites include Symphony of the night, Super Castlevania 4, Dracular X chronicles for the psp and in my opinion the Excellent Lords of shadow game. Despite the mixed feelings Toward mirror of fate i'm gonna give the game a chance only because it'll tie into Lords of shadow 2 (the latter which looks great from the trailers and screen shots i've seen).
Haters gonna hate. That's their problem. I for one, as a long time fan of the series dug Lords of Shadow as a change of pace and fresh look on the series as opposed to intensely stale state of the series up until that point. So I'm all for Mirror of Fate and LOS2.
CV 4 IN SNES
first game with dark/gothic theme i played and love.
top atmosphere along with diablo1 e 2/souls/dmc1 2 3 / hellgate london / vampire TM
@carolino Give Mirror of Fate CV 4's music and CV Bloodlines'style, SoTN's design and maybe Portrait of Ruin's difficulty, and you might have a decent game. ^_^
@carolino I too, loved Super Castlevania 4. The opening song has carved itself into my memory and shall remain as one of the best video game songs ever.
Super Castlevania 4 and Top Gear 2 (SNES) reign supreme among the best. I could never forget their soundtracks... and there's no reason that I would ever want to.
I was always a huge fan of the 2D castlevania series.... but by the time Order of Ecclesia came around... I felt like I was kicking a dead horse.
I have high hopes for this entry.
On a side note, anyone know where I can get a collector's edition of LOS for ps3?
@VenkmanPHD I felt the same way with Order of Ecclessia. It was a good game, but I was really expecting some sort of advancement in the story, but what I got was a side story, that IIRC they tell you in the en that no one will remember the events that happened. It really pissed me off and I loved the series so much. I realized that if IGA was just going to keep making side stories then why the hell am I playing the games? The gameplay barely changes, OoE did something different, but it wasn't something that was going to last. The game's were basically over by the time Aria of Sorrow came out, there wasn't really much to do in the series except make a game about the Battle of 1999 which I personally just rather not see.
Lords of Shadow was a breath of fresh air, it had a good art, good music (not as good as the original tracks, but it was decent), and it had a nice story which was something I had not seen in a CV game for a long time. I'm interested in MoE and LoS2 from a story standpoint and the way David Cox is talking he is making it sound really good.
It's to bad the Castlevania series didn't have a clean transition like The Legend of Zelda....it would have had to happen right away on the N64 or playstation for the transition to 3D to get a good start....
@uglypinkmoose Castlevania 64 was BOMB. It just died after that 3D wise. They never improved from that to the ps2 games.
@danusty @VenkmanPHD @uglypinkmoose
For the life of me I cannot understand why people don't like Curse of Darkness. I thought it was a fantastic Castlevania game. I've replayed the crap out of it. It had the Castlevania music, the Castlevania gameplay, it was basically Symphony of the Night in 3D. It captured that proverbial Castlevania feel quite well. Lords of Shadow, on the other hand, was terrible. It had this awful, summer-Hollywood-blockbuster-esque music which was a far cry from what we know and love as Castlevania, gameplay was a shameless copy of God of War and DMC, there were an insane amount of puzzles. I mean, it was puzzle, after puzzle, after puzzle until I was yelling in frustration at my TV, "...is this Castlevania or fu$#&*^%% Puzzlevania. And what's that stupid trend that all franchises seem to be on lately, "reimaginig"?! More like, "..you know all these games that you loved and cherished and grew up with and all the great storylines that occurred in them. Yea, none of those ever happened. It's like WTF!"
Yea, LOS was terrible. I bought it, played it, and immediately sold it back and I'd never done this with another CV game before. Heck, I even kept my copy of Lament of Innocence, another pretty lame CV game.
@VenkmanPHD @uglypinkmoose wasn't it kind of a mix of opinions? I feel like most the things I hear are less "it's awesome" and more awkward....like people didn't know how to feel about it....I mean there certainly are people who loved it but I feel like it wasn't exactly well received across the board.... I hear people complaining about the platforming, the ridiculous enemies, and the female protagonist etc. all the time...I think it was just an awkward game in general... that's not to say I didn't enjoy it....I have great memories with it.. I was just under the impression it wasn't massively agreed upon that it was an amazing game
What happened to " if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? OK, you can do whatever you like on the home consoles (reinvent to absurdity), but you DO NOT f*ck around with the handheld games!And what's up with the washed out,ugly style(graphics) for mirror of fate? With so many beautiful variants of stylized 2D ( I mean look at Black Knight Sword for God's sake) you chose that soulless ugliness - it blows my mind! And ditching Koji Igarashi - huge mistake!
First of all, there's a point which no one focus: the age of gamers. When first castlevania was released back in '86 (I had only 7) and technology was based on NES, it gave me a kick, because of novelty and the music that resounded in our ears you could hum it all day long. Later, in '93, when Super Castlevania IV came out for SNES, and I saw it for the first time, a huge chill got down into my spine, as I listened Simon's Theme. As you continue in the game, it gets better and better. Graphically, was sharped edge. With the release of Castlevania Symphony of the Night, I think it closed a circle, since it had some elements from the previous games (Demon and slogra bosses, as an example, were from the great SCIV). From '97, all Castlevanias released were only glitches and twiches of what a great Castlevania should be.
What I am keep saying is: if you have less than 27 to 35 years age by now it is possible that you can't feel what we did back then, because we had nothing. There weren't games sites, you saw the game's reviews on magazines. We discussed games amongst a group ou fisical friends (new generations use facebook... a lot of virtual friends, nothing you can... touch), we hummed games songs. Now, meaningless orchestra sounds and bands composing music are typical in new generations games.
I saw the birth and development of new consoles as series rose into the top and fall into oblivion, as was Castlevania. For me, a Castlevania without Slogra, Demon, Death and Dracula is not a Castlevania. Without a great music that skips naturally through the areas, is not a Castlevania. New generations may love it because games that exist now are much more evolved, knowing millions of polygons, but not knowing sprites and don't tell them nothing.
The producer say that increase the interest, taking the series to a new direction. No, It doesn't. Despite of great graphics and great story, music is repetitive and annoying. Maybe calling other thing for the series as stupidvania or castlevomit would be a great idea. Finally, I read an hilarious commentary about why new vampire's games aren't interesting as they used to be... Because in the old days, vampire's sucked blood. Nowadays, vampires are sucking cocks... And the COX subject is what we're talking about.
I ask apology for the older and new fans for my opinion, but when you lost a love, comes anger. When you lost your anger, comes guilt... Since you're not guilty, comes indiference. And indiference for the series is what I feel right now.
Lord of Shadows was a decent game but it certainly wasn't a castlevania... it was god of war meets shadows of the colossus... instead of keeping series going, when it's changed to much you should just make a new IP... for gods sake slapping a familiar name on something completely different is just a shameful attempt for more money and all of you game makers KNOW this.
@Xx_Kares_xX just like final fantasy the spirits within and final fantasy 11 and 14
Honestly I'm not that big of a castlevania fan, so I couldn't care less, but we are seeing this all over with almost every major series that people have grown up with. Final Fantasy is a big example that's been argued to death, as is Resident Evil.
Here is the REAL root of the problem developers: A Name holds a LOT of weight. You know this, and you use it to your advantage to try and sell more copies of your new game by slapping an old title onto it, it creates some success but it also includes a lot of backlash. If you were too take these same games (which half the time are decent in their own right) and gave them a NEW name, they would still sell well and you wouldn't get the backlash, in fact, then you could continue making old style games and getting money from your old fans while perhaps making even more NEW fans.
I think Dark Sider is a pretty good example. Decent graphics, decent control, a world where you can revisit, and etc. I think it would be more reasonable to have some areas with enemies that are hard to kill at current weapons, but, once you get better weapons, those enemies become easy to kill when you revisit. I think GOW camera is over done now. The boss should be less epic size, but, more rewarding, like Ninja Giaden 1.
Lords of Shadow was a fantastic game and I have big expectations for the sequel. The story was great, graphics and art direction was stellar. All the whiners are die hard Castlevania fanboys who would try nothing who is not a 2d side scroller. The only thing LoS II have to improve upon is the combat. It was broken in LoS as when you would try to hit your enemies a second (or third?) consecutive time your hit your just flow right through the guys therefore allowing the mobs to hit you and break your combos preventing to utilize the more complexe (and awesomers) moves of the game.
How about a side-scroller with RPG elements, like Synphony of the Night or Simon's Quest? It's no secret why these were so popular!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@mjtplayer Simon's quest isn't popular.. it's rather infamous... but Symphony of the Night and all the other similar games on the GBA and DS sold pretty well as far as I know.
i really likes the story, the gameplay is ok for me, similiar to POP and GOW, i don't know if it will be better to used Darksoul gameplay or mix the darksoul gameplay with GOW gameplay , just a thought, put some animal morphing will be cool i supposed, and co op game
whenever I hear "keep it relevant" from developers in usually means make it more accessible which almost always translates to call of duty-fy it.
@musalala hahaha! you're so right
@musalala Sadly, I've been starting to feel that way more and more. It really hit home when I went back and played the original Zelda after playing the Skyward Sword. Personally, I feel that the original had much better design, and felt more organic. More recently, with Ni No Kuni, I've been getting a similar feeling. It's pretty good overall, but it has so much fluff to it. There is so much mind-numbing content in that game. The emotion mechanic thing could have been much more interesting than it is. Literally, the whole mechanic revolves around drippy telling you exactly what to do, then you doing it. Hell it even opens the menu for you to the correct screen. I'm enjoying my time with it for the most part, but holy crap does it pander to the "modern gamer". Even to compare it to Level-5's Dragon Quest 8, just a few years ago, there is a huge difference in how these two games respect the intelligence of the gamer. Now I feel old :-(
@Seifer24 Sotn is the high point for the metroidvania genre. I'd put it just above supermetroid. Stellar games those be.
Make Castlevania 2D like the masterpiece Symphony of the Night, and make Resident Evil in the style of 1-3 Capcom you hentai wanker idiots! Sadly, Capcom will probably go bankrupt before they listen to the fans.
I am so fed up with fans nowadays whining and complaining 24/7 about how Castlevania has "lost" its touch. Everything that is Castlevania is still in Lords of Shadow, just more refined and with the fat trimmed off. People have attached their childhood sentimental values and blinded themselves from enjoying a VERY good reboot. It's the best selling Castlevania for a reason. These comments about how 'Vania has become a God of War clone are so incredibly ignorant and baseless.
Now, I'm not going to waste my time explaining how Lords of Shadow is NOT a God of War clone, because that in itself is a neverending argument for me. Lords of Shadow embodies old Gothic romanticism. It touches the aspects of lost love and mourning in a very poetic way, and when the game concludes, it really brings the story full circle. I, personally, always wanted more depth to the villain I'm supposed to kill in the end. Not to mention have a better emotional connection with the characters. I applaud Mercury Steam for the risks they have taken to get this far. It's just unfortunate gamers these days consist of a bunch of whining babies. Grow up and learn to accept change.
@ergopropter I applaud you, I say that everytime, people nowadays the only thing they can do is whine and cry. Icouldnt have put it in a better way. You sir closed the topic.
@ergopropter I don't think it's fair to invalidate others' opinions simply because you don't agree with them. I played both God of War and Lords of Shadow, and I can say that there is certainly a reason why those games were compared. Denying that seems ignorant. I'm not saying that games should never be taken in new directions, but when I'm turning to Dark Souls to get my Metroidvania fix instead of the series that caries its namesake, then I begin to question change. And the thing is, if they want to make a radically new game, then why apply the Castlevania name... other than profitability, of course. It's like making CoD an RTS; why not just make a new IP? There are other reasons why I didn't care for Lord of Shadow which had nothing to do with its transcendence of genres. I didn't like that gameplay elements were sacrificed to make the game more "cinematic". Things like a fixed camera, dependency on QTEs, and the contestant prompts to maneuver the environment are just poor design choices. Also, the horrific linear-open world structure to the game was annoying. By that, I mean that there were a few linear paths you could take in most levels, but all this did was lead to an inordinate amount of back-tracking. The game looked pretty, and had decent combat, for the most part, but I can't say that I'm a fan of the new direction.
@poster012 @ergopropter First off, I never invalidated anyone's opinion, second I say people are ignorant in their comments, because simply, they are. God of War players, along with Castlevania players have judged this game based on their preconceived notions or largely due to sentimental attachment and left it at that . If you ask 70% of God of War players whether or not they've played Lords of Shadow, their reply is, " No, I can simply just keep playing God of War, since it's a duplicate." As for your second statement, No, it wasn't profitable. why? because I can read between the lines and understand that when a developer hints at uncertainty towards a project, they were doing it strictly for artistic reasons. They didn't just slap on the Castlevania title, because actual care went into the development. Most reboots or new takes on a project nowadays are nothing short of terrible; (I'm looking at you, Silent Hill). I do strongly believe that it is every bit a Castlevania game, I just think that fans aren't trying to see the big picture, or the concept Mercury Steam is trying to relay. You're not a fan of the new Castlevania, that's fine. You can't please everyone, but at least you played the game to see for yourself.
@ergopropter @poster012 I suggest you reread your first paragraph (in your original comment). You took a pretty aggressive stance, and went into some detail as to why those whom oppose you are objectively wrong, making their opinion invalid.
My argument about comparing God of War with Lords of Shadow had nothing to do with the percentage of people who've played both, but rather the actual similarities that that games share, and that denying those similarities is being willfully ignorant.
My other point: I wasn't debating on whether or not it actually was a success; I was implying that they were hoping to make more money by using a familiar IP. Statistically, established IPs make far more money.
I'm really ambivalent about IPs being dramatically overhauled. After all, the reason why certain series become popular is because of the elements which comprise them. I liked Castlevania, not because of its name, but because gameplay usually associated with it. If I liked games that played like God of War, then I would play God of War (which I really didn't like, by the way). I go to Castlevania when I want to play a Metroidvania-type game. On the other hand, developers that find a winning formula tend to make the same game over and over again for the sake of a profit. And that's not necessarily good, either. That's one of the reasons I'm against sequels as a whole. The industry doesn't need to keep recycling ideas. If there were no sequels, then every game could stand on its own merit equally, and developers wouldn't feel pressured into re-skinning established franchises.
It's fine if you like it, and I'm not saying that it's a terrible game or anything, but I certainly had my issues with it.
@ergopropter Complaining about complaining huh hypocrite? I take it you never played Symphony of the Night. Lords of Shadow is good and not a GoW clone but it's nowhere near as good as SotN. Change isn't necessarily a good thing. Go play Resident Evil 6 and bash RE fans when you're done bashing Castlevania fans for having a different opinion than yours.
@hotpugz @ergopropter I'm not complaining, simply stating a percentage of gamer's opinions, and before you go ahead and assume I've never played symphony of the night, I have. I've played many of the original Castlevania games and they were just okay. That's my view on the matter, simply because they carried no weight or merit after I finished each story. Your last comment simply makes you sound like an idiot since you contradict your own statement, so I'll just leave that statement alone.
@SgtStrungOut @ergopropter @hotpugz So, let me get this straight. I **never** played a Castlevania game and if I did, I sucked at them or wasn't a **true** fan. Do you notice anything wrong with this statement? because, clearly, you set yourself up to be treated like an idiot. moreover, proving my point about how knuckle headed most Castlevania fans are. Thanks for the good laugh.