They better not, that's nostalgic!

Also, over the course of this thread I began to realize just how much I hate the term "Metroidvania".

Anyway, the information is pretty limited, but I'm not so sure about the whole world map thing... It could work out really well, but it sounds a bit shady to me. Technically though I didn't feel that PoR really took place in just the one castle--every painting was its own level really, so the castle was just the central level through which you reached each sub-level.

The Glyph system sounds fun to me, I always like combining different stuff to see what happens, I can't wait to see how it's handled. I just hope that it's actually balanced, that's often an issue with this kinda thing. Bat Glyph + Door Glyph = Armageddon!

I always thought it was "Castleroid". It certainly rolls off the tongue better.

It's funny, I was playing Symphony of the Night again on the PSP and I was thinking "I want a new one of those DS games". The following day this thread pops up and makes my day. The milk on this cow hasn't spoiled for me yet. I do hope the game can be a bit longer though.

The Glyph system seems to be a fusion of LoI style combos + item crashes/crushes. What interests me most is the former: COMBOS! It's about time we got a 2D Devil May Cry ;)

I may be completely alone in this thought, or it could be crossover fetishism talking, but we need an actual Metroidvania. Like Samus pumping holy missiles or something into Dracula, or the Belmonts/Soma/Alucard picking a fight with Ridley.

That being said I love me some new Castlevania, and hope this game doesn't invoke the redundancy clause in the level themes like the last game did.

If I can find it, I'll link ya. But I've read a few very convincing arguments for HoD.

I hate it too, but probably for different reasons. A small minority of Castlevania games are "Metroid" in style.

Color me excited. I loved Portrait of Ruin as well as pretty much every single other Castlevania game to date.

Still, I clamor for a console 2D sequel to SOtN more than anything. An enormous, expansive 2D world on the 360 with HD sprites, obscene amounts of enemies and particle effects would make me cream. Imagine a 40 hour 2D Castlevania game? Ahh, I can dream...

Has clearly never grinded for anything in a Castlevania.

*imagines*

I see a game that wears out it's welcome, who's setting and artstyle eventually become dull, and gameplay that relies more and more on pointless fetch quests and scarcity of items.

Also maybe lengthy FMV.

No thanks.

Grinding isn't real gameplay.

Think REALLY hard about what you just said. Please.

Curse of Darkness was almost 40 hours but in 3D. It's still dull as all-know fuck though.

Also travel outside the castle walls? I hope they expand on that, not just "you go to this town to do all the mission pertaining to this stage. Finish these missions and you'll never set foot on this town again."-type.

Okay, grinding is the dark side of gameplay. How much time you're willing to put into a game shouldn't be a challenge. I think that game length has become a large factor in the critique of a game that grinds (and pointless side quests, etc.) are used far too often because we actually ask for that shit.

I believe games have become less about the quality of the gameplay, and more the quantity. Too many can only justify the purchase if it wil satisfy them for X hours. This isn't speaking against sidequests and such, but please leave out elements that are ONLY there to deliberately lengthen the experience, not add to it. In movies, you don't see people going to a movie because it runs 20 minutes longer than the much better film running alongside it, but in games, people tend to put up with much more fat than I believe we should. "Over 40 hours of gameplay!" shouldn't be a selling point on every box I see now, the classics have come in all sizes.

When did I ever say I liked Grinding or that it was a positive trait in video games, Wraith?

I'm sorry if it sounded like I did. I was just trying to explain my earlier statement, not place accusations on anyone, aside from possibly the gamer community as a whole. Anyways, I'm sorry for derailing this thread somewhat, I'll be good.

It was a good statement, at that. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I find that people talk about "length" as if it means an extension of the parts they find enjoyable. Most games are fairly long, as you stated, but yeah... a lot of that length is masochistic type shit like grinding or other repetitive boring tasks. I just feel that asking for a 40 hour Castlevania is stupid, as "completing" everything certain Castlevanias have to offer is often times a lengthly task.

Fun-sponge :(

40-hour Castlevania meaning 40 hours from beginning of the main quest to the end of it, side-quests and completionism not included.

That would have to be the last game in the series, a literal magnum opus. And that just ain't gonna happen.

PS: It'd be an 80 hour game, then.

SOTN, Aria, Dawn and PoR are not long at all. Not even going for pretty much everything they have to offer. The only thing that takes awhile is unrecorded things, like if for some reason you want one of every item in SOTN, but why would you even bother save for WANTING the game not to end?

I mean, the soul system in aria+dawn seems daunting, but it isn't. I beat both of those games with every soul in like 20 hours. My Dawn save I could even snap a picture of- of my replay at 26 hours, guys. :(

Couldn't hurt for them to actually extend the game's lengths just a little. Not asking for a lot, but just a small boost would be nice. Of course, that's the obvious fanboy in me talking. I'll honestly be happy as long as they keep churning out decent games.

OCD level completionism is pretty much what these Castlevania games prey on. I don't think anyone argues that the main game is long, it's that the side shit is tedious and pretty much what you have to squeeze in order to get a longer return on your investment in these games for some people. It probably wouldn't hurt them to extend the campaign... but then again it probably wouldn't hurt them to stop rehashing the same damn game every time they want to do a supposed "new release."

Soul collecting *was* the side stuff though. I guess I see the point that the game would have likely been about 6 hours without it in there though. I mean, rushing through SOTN, even filling in 199~201% of the map (close to perfect) I can beat the game in around two hours these days. Considerably less if I just make a shot for the end.

Never bothered to speed through the DS games, I imagine it'd be mostly the same in those too though. Oh well.

I imagine the preparation to be able to do those runs isn't exactly a short process starting out... that is unless you use a guide or some such. I mean, I see where the game can have its longevity, and it's just unfortunate since I hate doing it. The last Castlevania handheld game I enjoyed was probably Aria of Sorrow.

For SoTN it's just that I've played that game to death and have the map pretty much memorized is why I can race through it so quickly. Even on the 360 arcade release, I got all the achievements in like 4 hours.

I'd guess you were talking about trying to speed through the other games though, since the souls are mostly how you become so overpowered in the first place. (jetting through the games would probably get you killed since there are no amazing level spots I've found)

But i mean, there are only a few "awesome" souls anyway and in Dawn especially, you can boost your luck with another soul that isn't hard to get at all (right near a save, exit<>re-enter and kill til you get 9 of them) and the rest are pretty easy to get. I'd imagine the game would be pretty short if you knew exactly which souls were actually worth it.

I just honestly haven't liked any of the castlevanias THAT much since SOTN to bother with any speed runs through the rest of the games; though Aria was a interesting idea and I also loved it a ton. The rest of the games have been "good enough" to warrant buying and playing through, but not good enough to warrant several replays. Not even close. :(

To each is own. Even SotN has its limits. I mean, explore, explore, explore. Castlevania needs a more in-depth combat system to make it last eternally. Like DMC3. Except not.

I'm looking forward to this game, even if it'd be pretty much the same as the last portable Castlevanias. Am I the only person who actually likes (moderate) grinding in these kinda games?