Hi, gang! I just wanted to know if you all can help me out with something. I'm kinda surveying some things here.

I'm in the midst of creating a video game for the PC (Concept was concieved 7 years ago, and I finally have tons designs and ideas of what engine I'll be using). While I cannot tell you much about it yet, it's pretty much gonna be a Castlevania-style game. While I know those games are getting pretty oversaturated in the market lately, the action platforming exploration genre is one of my favorites. Most really like the genre, but I can understand those who are opposed to it as well.

So my question(s) to you all is: What kind of thing to you like seeing the most in these type of games? What do you hate? Would you perfer run and gun like Metriod, or stationary projectiles like Castlevania? Do you like the RPG elements? Story? Words of wisdom? What cool things stood out to you the most? And please, by all means make it as generic of an answer if you want, or if you perfer to elaborate, that's cool too. 

This has been a passion project for me for a long time, so personally I don't want to take the route that most indie games do and shove tutorials in your face or have the layout of the levels and enviroments not being congruent to the overall control scheme and play mechanics. I'm also looking closely into game design, what works and what doesn't, but overall I also feel it best to get some feedback as books and tutorials can only say so much.

I'm purposely keeping some things a bit vague, but if y'all have any questions, comments, personal opinions or whatever throw 'em at me. Any critique is much appriciated too, just keep it civil.  

Also, I was gonna put this in Gamer's Gauntlet, but I feel that I should be putting this in Brewery since it's kinda a technical question in indie development, even though it's not something NES or Nintendo related. If a mod wants to move it to the proper channel or anything, please do.  

~Bounce

Personally I don't like being able to over grind and then just plow through the whole game. So maybe have a cap to how much you can level up? Or do like Paper Mario where the more leveled up you are the less XP you get from the weaker enemies, eventually getting none at all.

It might be interesting to make every enemy be a challenge with different patterns, or with strong attacks that you have to dodge and stuff like that. Instead of having like easy ones to grind through.

I dunno, just some thoughts  no matter what you end up doing id Love to try it out!

I got excited because I thought C&C meant Command and Conquer. I like real time strategy games. I never really played the original Castlevania or any of the Metroidvanias so... this is a waste of a post and I apologize.

I'm currently doing a run through of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, a lifelong favorite, so I'm going to be a bit biased.

But something I'm noticing this time around is how "full" the game feels. For example, there are SO MANY 'food' items, with varying effects on HP. I pick these things up and it's just like a "why... wow!" reaction. It shows that the programmers had a lot of fun with the development, and as a consumer, it shows a real depth of development (even though it's just some extra silly powerups).

So yeah... that. Attention to detail.

Thanks for the input! So bascially have a good ballanced progression system, and have enemies that complement that system, correct? Interesting.

Of course, I don't want the game to be too difficult, too easy to where it gets boring, nor do I want it to be a chore just to make it easy. Some grinding is great if not rewarding, but I'd hate to make it an obligation to the player. 

Something I may think about here.

  I should be the one to apologize for making you think I was talking about Command and Conquer. lol

Not really a waste of post if you feel like adding what you like or don't like in your favoritie games in general. Some games stem ideas from other genres. It don't always have to be about Metriodvania style games.   

  Hmmm... I like this idea, and something I may incorporate when going into development. I'll try and do something unique to an item, rather than "Ice Cream gives you +10HP while Hamburger gives you +15HP" for no reason. Like it's best to give a reason WHY an item does what it does rather than it giving you an arbitrary point.

Reminds me a little bit about the way items make your character fat in Metal Slug. lol I might not go that far, but overall that attention to detail when it comes to items does sound a bit fun!  

 

if it's a Castlevania-style game, all I ask is that you make the player character not take forever to go up and down the stairs.

When you beat a boss, do like a big elaborate explosion/death animation in such a way that the player feels like a million dollars after they defeat it.

My opinion on games:

Games today are actually *too* focused on story and graphics with little focus on gameplay. Seems to me that studios sort of just have a prepare gameplay formula and stick to it so they can focus on again, story and graphics.

An indie game needs three things done right. Gameplay, Graphics, Audio. And of course story is massively important too but its better best served in bite sizes for indie games.

Look at your Undertale, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy, Five Nights at Freddys. These are games that have had massive success because they all hit the nail right on the head.

Also, focus on your target audience if you want to make money...this is people who are a bit younger who were given a $20 steam gift card....or stole moms credit card to buy some CS:GO keys. This means ironically you need to give the game a more adult feel while ignoring maturity....again, only if your intention is pure profit.

Oh, and try to throw some cryptic incomplete story elements in there that get people making theories about the game. If you're lucky....Game Theory will pick up on it and you'd be an overnight multimillionaire

Dude, you all rock! Thank you all! Keep the questions and comments going!!!   Yes! I think they fixed it in Symphony of the Night, so I might have to cop that style. Quite frankly, it might even a little harder to code a separate cycle to stairs, so it's best to keep everything the same speed and flow anyways.

The most annoying thing the stairs have to offer is that they limit control as well. When battling hoards of medusa heads, they can also lead to death traps. Never again since I want to make stairs become something as solid and as movable as the ground, and offer only verticality when the level needs it. There are other methods of branching levels and overall structure.

  I'm studying the ways things go "explody" and how good it feels. My favorites moments are in Megaman X when you defeat a boss, everything stops for a second and the boss goes up in flames. That little pause can bring something a little more inpactful. I also like the way the wolves blow up in Symphony of the Night and how satisfying things are to blow up.  



  I agree, I feel like games should be what their namesake should be: Games. Everything needs a balance. I'm finding ways to sprinkle story in just enough where it shouldn't be overbearing, but good enough to draw your own. I might have to see what I can do and maybe get some scripts edited before I throw it all in.

As for target audiences, I see what you're saying-- pretty much way movies try and get that pg-13 rating, so that there's a broader audience to make money on. Since this is much a passion project, I might not go for the younger audience and keep this on a bit Mature. I'm doing this to not limit myself, but at the same time, I don't want maturity to be the main focus. i.e. swearing for no reason or for the sake of just doing it. But, if it came down to it, I can make an edited version as well. 

I love the cryptic story element idea. I've always been a fan of Game Theory, so I would love to add in something for the player to glue in for a whole picture. Bits and pieces of story, again just enough to where people can know what's going on, but have some questions as well.  

 

I think, for that genre, you need to focus on either a Castlevania-like or a Metroid-like.
The genuine "Metroid-vania" mashup seen in SoTN is done-to-death, and for all the wrong reasons, IMO.

Neither of the core games have "typical" RPG elements (like were seen in SoTN) and I think avoiding those entirely makes for a better, more balanced game, that can allow for better and more deliberate design. Once you give the player the ability to over or under level, you essentially guarantee a lack of balance at some point that will either frustrate (under-leveled makes the game too hard) or disappoint (over-leveled makes the game too easy). And in that type of action-adventure, it can be easy to accidentally find yourself in either condition, depending on the pacing.


I think a genuine Castlevania-like (i.e. arcade-style power-ups, unchanging life meter, etc) provides a developer with the ability to craft an experience exactly the way they want ALL players to experience it.
The only "exploration" is providing multiple paths via forks in the road and hidden exits, along with having hidden score-based items (or some other kind of hidden collectible along the way)

Similarly, a genuine Metroid-like (i.e. all power-ups are found, enemies only represent obstacles, not leveling opportunities) provides the ability to present genuine exploration with hard limitations based on missing powerups that need to be found elsewhere.

In neither core-game is the player ever in the position of needing to grind for experience, or do they find they have done unnecessary grinding that unbalances the rest of the game, ruining the flow and the player experience.



The "Metroidvania" tag on Steam, for instance, is widely misused and misapplied.
(i.e. Axiom Verge is a pure Metroid-like, not "Castlevania-elements" whatsoever -- and it is a much better game for sticking to the core of what makes Metroid fun and interesting, rather than attempting the blend seen in SoTN)



EDIT:  and I think there is a lot of unexplored additions to the core-Castlevania genre that you can get into without blending it with Metroid, and without adding RPG elements that never existed in the earlier games in the series.

A mashup with something like Gargoyle's Quest, for instance, lets you add in story and some level choice and exploration, without ever needing to resort to grinding/experienced-based-leveling.

Yeah, I've debated on a leveling system.  As I mentioned before, I don't like to make it an obligation to the player or bore them to death with endless grinding.

Maybe I'll take some queues and elements from games like Mega Man, where a power up is needed for a particular boss or enemy, but not required. No leveling, just using atributes from items and equipment and balance it out that way. 

If I can find a way to make leveling fun, I'll do so. Maybe only offer it for defence instead of offence and have a a short cap? 


 

Personally, I think any of these games (Castlevania, Metroid, MegaMan) are best designed to be winnable (by an serious player) without the use of any combat-based powerups, at all.  (i.e. self-inflicted hard mode)

You layer on power-ups that make the game easier for the player, in whatever form (i.e. items in Castlevania with the II and III powerups, extra missiles and tanks in Metroid to ease the difficulty, attribute-rock-paper-scissors in MegaMan).

Then, you can figure out interesting ways to encourage the player to not necessarily use the powerups, by rewarding more challenging play.
(access to better endings, access to alternate levels/paths, etc)


So the game can be accessible to players that need the powerups (and those powerups can be collected in a natural way, rather than grinding), but the "harder core" players can avoid their use in specific battles or situations to find interesting skill-based rewards.

 

I see, thanks Nathan! So much priority to the overall structure to these, so I need to be careful not to do something that would leave players scratching their heads (in the wrong way at least.) I'm glad you know that there's differences between each game, most people don't really like to keep an open mind and see all these games as "the same". They might be similar, but they're not the same.

Much to take in, so I'm keeping notes. lol  


 

Not an expert of Castelvania, Mega Man, Metroid kind of games, so keep this comment for what it is worth.

Conceptually I fully agree with the ideas quoted here above, and brainstorming about it I think a possible idea to implement it in a way it is fully featured hard mode rather than a self inflicted hard mode, is the following.

For instance, you can implement easy normal and hard difficulty settings, a choice the player does at the beginning of the game; and you have icons located in your screens for both power ups and bonus points.

Now, at easy level many of these icons are power ups, and few are bonus points; at standard level you will have some less of these being power ups and some more of these being bonus points, At hard level the vast majority of them are going to be bonus points, and very few power ups.

Final score decides of which kind of ending you will see, so best endings are more likely (or only possible) on harder difficulty level. And best scores as well.

Of course, just an idea, there are tons of other solutions. But I do like the concept that the harder the game is, i.e. the less easy you make for yourself to defeat the game, the more rewarding the ending should be after defeating it (and teh highest the score should be, if score is implemented in a game). A true master of the game, will be the one winning at the hardest setting.

I'm really liking this idea! This has got me thinking of a structure I could possibly go with.  
 

Oh? Opinions about game development? Don't mind if I do.  

What do I look for in retro-style PC games?

Aesthetics
1. Honest resolution. (The game is built at the resolution of its assets. i.e. not just enlarging sprites). This is, in my book, the most amateurish thing an indie retro-style game can do and is noticeable when either the sprites and background art are at a different resolution–or objects are moving less than what a pixel appears to be. 
2. Refrain from the overuse of engine-based particle and lighting systems.

Interface
3. Complete keyboard/joystick control. I want to be able to navigate every menu and every option without a mouse. This makes your game arcade-cabinet friendly. Having key-only options open up Joy2Key compatibility (keyboard mapping for joysticks that aren't recognized well as gamepads). 
4. Customizable and savable input schemes. I'd rather change the game's settings once than have to have a custom Joy2Key profile for each game.
5. Instant full screen (again, cabinet-friendly).

Content (These are what I look for in any game, not just PC)
6. Diverse and socially responsible character and protagonist representation.
7. Mature, not "M for Mature" content. I care to play games that I can play with my wife, in front of kids, and that I can proudly and comfortably suggest for others to play as well. I have no interest in any media that's blatantly marketed toward the Mountain Dew demographic. This is the main reason 90% of commercial and mainstream games have lost my interest.
8. Original IPs and assets (no fan games)
9. Unique settings & themes (Interest is created by contrast, and I would have a lot more interest for a game that, for example, "plays like Castlevania" but is not generic European–or a game that "plays like Megaman" but is not set in a near-future technological utopia. (This is why things like Mighty #9 and the similar not-Castlevania whose name escapes me on kickstarter bore me so much).
10. Some kind of local multiplayer. Ideally? Campaign, local co-op. But, that's asking a lot considering level design, etc. However, some kind of competitive or cooperative mini-games or stages based on the game engine with its assets would be totally feasible. 

Locomalito's game library hits a lot of what I look for in games.

Basically, in PC games, I look for cabinet-friendly games that have intentional visual design. And in any game, I look for responsible games that use contrast to build interest. "It's like Castlevania, but…" or "It's a vertical shoot 'em up, but…"

As a player of quite a few of these type of games, here's a few things I enjoy.

1. Not just one castle.
I don't like to see just one supermap. Surprise the player. Upside-down castle you didn't know about? A whole nuther area? A town or two? Order of Ecclesia did this perfectly.

2. Do have level-ups, but make the game more gear-reliant than level-reliant. It should be very difficult to defeat any boss with a naked character.

3. Different playstyles depending on the gear you equip. Offer mage gear, offer swords and shields, offer interesting effects and combos with said effects.

4. Don't turn it into Pokemon.
Don't make it so every enemy you can encounter has a 1 in 99 chance of dropping their ability for you.

5. If you do have abilities, allow players to only equip a few at a time and mix and match them for interesting gameplay styles.

6. Different characters, if possible. Players love trying something new during their playthrough. If you get to play as different characters throughout the storyline... I honestly don't think I've seen that done in a Metroidvania. It's usually just 'You're stuck with this one character' or 'You can unlock a few more 'for funsie' characters once you beat the game.'

7. Avoid Easy, Medium, Hard settings, etc. Try to design your difficulty curve very carefully. Dracula's castle wouldn't be very intimidating if you could just throw it on easy mode and cruise through it. And nobody enjoys it when Hard mode is way too freaking hard because of some wonky HP algorithm's making things arbatrarily hard. If people want to make the game easier with broken equipment they searched a FAQ online for, so be it. But make them EARN it. The Crissagrim is way too easy to snag. Think about adding optional super-bosses. Think about adding end-game content. Reward the player for sticking around past the credits.

8. If you're going for a creepy atmosphere, make the areas get progressively creepier. If we're going down into the basement, it needs to feel darker and creepier as we descend. Maybe we even catch glimpses of Hell eventually. If we're going up and up, make it feel like the player has ascended to the clouds. Have sky gardens, great views (so not every area is indoors), holy relics, that sort of thing.

9. One-way sections!!! Give us a dungeon or two where once you enter, you're forced to commit -- Go through the whole path and have to come out on the other side alive to reach the next save point. CV Circle of the Moon did this perfectly, but only did it for one area. This is also an awesome way to provide 'challenge' areas without making a lame 'other' option on the menu screen. I think this is the reason why some folks love CotM the best of the GBA Castlevanias.

10. Don't give us too many health potions. Having a massive stock of HP potion makes boss fights not scary. Either that or disable the use of HP potions during boss fights! THAT could be interesting.

11. As far as the story goes, really all you have to do is give us unique atmosphere. Give us a feel for what's outside of the dungeon we're exploring. Is it rustic Transylvania, and people are dying from a plague? Is it Tokyo in the future, and everyone's freaked out by the blood red full moon that's been in the sky for two straight weeks? Nobody really remembers much about Castlevania storylines. Do we really remember exactly who Shaft is in Symphony of the Night? Eh, who cares. Just another boss to fight.

12. For that matter, have more storyline bosses who are not just randos. Let us get to know some of the bosses ahead of time. Make us fear them. Or make them horrifying and unexpected. Perhaps make them challenge the player to think by making them exploit a mechanic or combo the player may not have figured out on their own yet. Get the player thinking.

13. Reward players for speed-running the game. Reward them for figuring out how to skip certain content.

Well, I'm sure you're getting overwhelmed, so I'll stop here. I had other ideas, but they're slipping my mind.

Just want to say it's so cool you have the knowledge and ability to make a game like this! I wish you the best of luck!

This is a very interesting comment. The few NES games which I designed, I designed them to be rather challenging to defeat, without being impossibly hard, but still, not easy at all.
In most cases, when proposing the ROM to someone (or after being tried by betatesters), the reaction was always like: good for an hard setting, please implement a way to reduce the difficulty for players willing to play an easier game. I had even a clue in an NPC dialog of (the beginning of) S&R being changed because too much enigmatic and not "babysitting" the player enough in what was required to do next. So, long story made short, I like (both play and design) challenging games, when playing a game which is a bit too easy, either I find a way to make it a bit more challenging myself (renouncing to use some features), or (if there are no ways that I can lose) it bores me, and, for what my opinion is worth, a unique challenging setting would be a good standard in most games (like you seem to point out as well). But from the few feedback I got from the few games which I designed, general preferences are for at least few different difficulty settings to be implemented in the starting screen.


Of course, this is just an anecdotal memory about a brief experience, not a detailed statistical analysis on the matter, so take it for what it is worth (probably very little).  


Edit: corrections to a couple of sentences.

As far as difficulty settings go, they definitely have their place and I love them in certain games. For instance, I'd absolutely expect it in just about any puzzle game. They also work in most beat-em-ups and FPS's.

But I wouldn't like it very much in a Metroidvania or jRPG.

For that matter, the ever-present and ever-adjustable difficulty slider in wRPGs (such as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion) drives me up the wall. If somebody tells me they defeated a certain boss or got past certain content, first thing I wonder is, "Yeah, but what difficulty setting were you on?"

When a game is a well-laid out adventure, I believe there's an opportunity to make a very deliberate learning curve, and it's an opportunity to -subtly- teach the player to learn new tricks in order to overcome new challenges.

For these kinds of games, if some of your target audience still requests an easy mode, maybe the feature can be hidden behind a code input or come with a penalty of some kind (no final stage, crappier ending, etc.).

[1] Ok, clear, thanks.

[2] True. Also, any game with quick save in any point of the game, loses any challenge value on my books, so I honestly did not play any of those. In games like FF 1 to 6 there are several more or less friendly save points, even half way in a dungeon, but still, you have to accomplish again at least some search, retake some steps, redo many challenging things, retake some objects and treasure, if you fail your task the first time, before getting to the next save point. And some are quite far apart in very challenging areas, and you need to do something worthy remember challenge wise (at least the first time you did it), before reaching the next save point.

For instance, in FF VI (FF III us), SPOILER ALERT! [the game is over 20 years old, I think it is ok] you save before Atma on floating continent (assuming that you did save, by the way!), then you are surprised by Atma, rather tough battle (depending how much you avoided to over level), and then a cut scene, and then... an unexpected few minutes of running against the clock, no time to heal, facing several battles against unknown opponents with weird immunities, before another final boss, and if the timer runs over, retake everything from before Atma. You will likely not make it the first time, and the second time, you have to restart from before Atma again (quite enraged about having already defeated that boss, by the way).

So, well, clear the floating continent chapter, it is something that gives you quite a big sense of accomplishment when you finally can do it, I mean the first time that you can accomplish the task (especially if you discovered a working strategy by yourself). Imagine the same scenario with unlimited quick save, challenge wise, saving before any battle while running away, where would be the challenge, it would just be meh... at least, that's my opinion, other would argue that save state in emulators make these games more enjoyable. To each its own.  


[3] This! I definitely agree. Do not babysit me! Force me to *discover* the game mechanics in order to progress, but don't explicitly tell me to do * this * because to do * this * in this case is the best call; and mostly, make it so that I can still * discover * a suboptimal strategy (you programmer did not even think about maybe), avoiding doing * this *, but cunningly win anyways.


I really agree with what you wrote in this chapter!  

Edit: misspelling, corrected a sentence.

Awesome stuff, guys! Extremely interesting points. Taking all this in consideration, but I bet no matter what I implement, there's gonna be something that nobody's gonna like, which I know sometimes can't be helped. Everybody's different. So be prepared to hate or be annoyed by something. Fair warning: it might not be family friendly. lol

But, do note that I want to put some effort into it, rather than just cobble stuff together and just throw it out there for the big bucks. It's much more than that for me, and I'll try my best to put this out there.

I've looked over these comments, watched some videos (Like what NOT to do in games like Mighty No. 9 and stuff), looked at what goes into making a game, why it's important to organize how even the code is laid out and even went back to some old originals and asked myself "why" I loved these games.