I found this today and thought it was an interesting deconstruction of the way Castlevania 3 is set up. It's not a positive look but it gives some nice ideas on ways you might improve gameplay and encourage exploration.
http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features ... hp?print=1
The site has other good articles on game design too.
This guy seems to try to be super-intellectual and bash CV3 that way, analyzing any small deatail and saying it sucks (with no apparent reason). What's the point ? You can do that with about anything.
PS : The platform at the top of the crurch IS accessible, you'll need Grant or Alucard, and it contains $7000.
However, what can be said, is that there is a LOT of areas in the game which are accesible only with Grand or Alucard (some of them only on the second game because they are before you have a chance to have one of them in your party), and that contain absolutely no cool secret.
And the guy didn't know about the second quest, where there are far more enemies in the level. It even uses some MMC5 exclusive features to get more tiles for monsters.
And yes, you can indeed return with Alucard or Grant and get that large denomination money bag that is out of reach.
I thought it was interesting how he brought up the way screen design leads players toward certain areas and might make you attempt to find secrets. I always forget where the meat is in level 1 because I try a few walls near the start and give up, having been taught that experimentation really isn't worth it.
And the concept of branching paths, how an opening level can teach you about the sort of options you'll be encountering vs. having a stair platform that really doesn't do anything. Clearly the designers were focused on branching your level choices, and not having a lot of choice within a single level.
People who think that way really make their worlds smaller. If only a handful of aspects of one or two games pleases them, how do they entertain themselves the other 98% of the time? Oh...right. Writing these articles!
Being such an avid CV3 fan, I of course disagree with this guy's point of view. I don't know what he thinks is better about CV1 than CV3. CV3 is a lot like CV1, except you get to enter passwords to pick up from where you left off, there's a ton more levels, options, and power-ups... The music's better, the graphics are better... The environments are more interesting... It's far less linear... True, it's more rewarding when you beat the 2 ridiculously hard bosses in CV1 (Frankenstein and Death), but in CV3 you get annoyed a lot less. Plus, there are bosses later on that are equally challenging, just not crappy and cheap.
I also think this has been quite dissected by the writer, to the point where I wouldn't have even really thought about some of these things. Yeah, it's hard to avoid getting hit by the boss once. Yeah the level doesn't have many platforms in this one spot. Yeah, there are fleamen instead of skeletons in that other spot. Can we get over it?
And really, do we need the big thesis for your master's degree in gaming psychology in the beginning? I didn't expect to read 8 paragraphs about human behavior, evolution, and the meaning of life in a frickin' review of Dracula's Curse.
My response to this review:
"So I see this is your first time playing a Castlevania game....."
Not much more to say than that. I read the thing in full -- twice -- and I had a hard time taking away anything beneficial/useful, development or design-wise, from it.
This sort of bollocks is exactly why I don't do console development and stuff any longer. Continually "analysing" video games, for me anyway, takes away from the overall enjoyment / fun aspect. I'm much happier just playing them. :D
I have a huge problem with most new things I read on game design, whether they're articles or text books. They tend to have very little practical information and are often poorly written.
I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at games with a critical eye- there's bad game design even in classics like Zelda, but most of this stuff can be said much more succinctly, artfully, and less pretentiously.
Articles like this just leave people tired, alienated and uninterested.
Castlevania II is my favorite in the series, btw.
Yeah I don't think it is significant to think that much to produce games, or even to be a reviewer.
If I could answer to this guy I'd be tempted to say (nb the colors are picked randomly) : "Your eyes are blue. Blue eyes are crap. Your hair is brown - that is a huge disapointment. Both of your older brothers had blond hair - that was good and now you are brown and this is bad. Added to this you have a huge nose and a FAT A$$. In other words you suck. Well you're not that much a bad guy but it's just compared to your big bros you are a lame guy".
That's pretty much what he says - translated from a game to a human.
The "correct" way to go would be - "You are what you are and that's it. People has different body shapes and hair/eyes/skin colors (except in Asia but that's another story) and that's a great thing. Now just deal with who you are and take the best of your life.
I wonder what this guy considers good level design?
Although I do agree that the speed shoe in the first level of S&K felt randomly placed because you'll run into a wall before it wears off, and then it wears off before you have a clear path to run again.
Interesting to note (I haven't sat down with the article yet,) this looks like the same Eric-Jon who used to post around forums where I usually hang out. note used to, he hasn't been round in a couple years. Not really sure what happened to him...
(after reading that, yeah, I think this was done more for kids who want to go to video game trade collage, be a game designer(!!!!) and otherwise misses the point. It's a depressing read.)