Better Castle Security? (Enemy Behavior) (Submitted)

Going to the BBCode tab in the reply page makes things easier. Just copy/paste the quotation headers around the paragraphs you want to respond to.


Well, I didn't feel offended after you stated that my suggestion was not thought through (even though I am also an aspiring game designer), I just took it as that is how you saw things. I didn't say you were desperate, I said: " I thought you were" which is a statement of thought rather than a declaration of fact.
Also, despair in defending ideas is associated with righteousness while stubbornness is associated with being wrong. They become interchangeable when it is not possible to know if the person is right or wrong. I shall avoid using either in the future.


I'd say that makes you biased more than conceded. Having played too much of the old thing and loved it to the point of near obsession (that axe armor mode is too much) may prevent you from seeing new and different possibilities. I am not saying that is the case here, I am just informing you of the likely possibility of interpreting your statement from my point of view.


If you describe Castlevvania as an obstacle course then you put it at the same level as Meatboy. The pacing, difficulty and the availability of multiple solutions may all be difference points between the two games, but they would boil down to the same principles. Unless you describe Castelevania as an exploration game (not sure how many titles of the franchise fit that description, but I am sure SotN does) then it is a completely different equation.
And I think this is where the disparity in our perspectives lie. Allow me to ask you a question: Which is more an Igavania than the other; Rogue Legacy or koumajou densetsu?
My suggestion works well for the first but not with the second.


Not all enemies behave the same and not all will follow. And I am all in for that synergy you talk about; that is what I was talking about when I talked about enemy formations. But I didn't see much of that in SotN; enemies were placed individually and even when two of them were together, they rarely played to each others' strength.

Now let me tel you about how I played SotN and what I hated the most about it.
The castle was obviously complex with many paths and most of them were out of reach, but I knew I will have to get back to those and explore them when I get the ability to do so. So most of my play time was divided into exploration trips centered around save points. This meant that I would frequent the same save points few times before reaching the next one; the rooms near the save points are frequented as well.
But each room was the same as the first time I entered it; the enemies are the same and they spawn in the same positions and require the same moves I did the first time to progress through (if not less moves since I am stronger now). After a certain point, the game was a mindless walk through many already explored rooms just to get to the small area I couldn't explore before.
And while I didn't need to do the same with the reverse castle since I had all the exploration abilities, I was strong enough to beat most if not all enemies with little to no effort because I am used to the game and know what to expect from it.
Now imagine if while backtracking through a previously explored area with enemies that I can kill without even thinking about it and I am faced with the suggested hunter group, and they are strong! That is a kick to the brain to get back in action. Better yet if you can't shake them off since they follow you from room to the next and you can't explore with such enemies on your back since they can make the possibly harder rooms ahead even harder, you can try to lose them by going through areas they can't cross (like the points connecting different sections of the castle or spiked hallways requiring special abilities to pass through) or you can lead them to a room that you can use to your advantage.
It can be balanced right and it would give people who spend too much time in the same area or people who abuse the save point a challenge that speed runners and fast platforming favoring players wouldn't need to bother with.

Another beef I had with the game is that the weapons didn't matter much and the items and spells rarely felt useful. At the same time, certain items felt so overpowered that I didn't use them because the game just broke. You have to add some dynamic response to the player's power and weapons in order to keep the challenge up; that is why static design isn't that great.
If you can't design rooms while keeping all the available weapons in mind unless most of those weapons play the same (which makes it pointless to have them in the first place) and designing the room for one type of weapons while ignoring the others will make certain weapons overpowered and others totally useless (which makes it pointless to have them again).

There are as many arguments against static design as there can be against procedural generated designs. Both can be used to make amazing things when done right but a balance between the two (while difficult) can create even better experience.


Again you use the word "gimmicky" as if it is a bad thing and again you hang on to the example I gave to clarify the idea and forget the idea itself. If the player didn't know such a thing was possible (because it usually isn't) they only stand to discover it by chance which would result in a happy surprise (and sacrificing a boss fight for that is definitely worth it; such was the case of the fight with Galamoth in SotN). If the player knew about it, that knowledge can be used against the player to surprise him again (the enemy gets stronger in the other room instead of weaker). A harder fight with a better reward will still attract players who appreciate a challenge while players who don't care for the fighting as much as the exploring will appreciate the easier one.
You only stand to gain possibilities with the only possible downfall is the failure of the game devs to apply the idea in a fun manner (and I believe in Igarashi).

Also, that player defeated the crab with the same tactic from start to finish! The transition changed nothing!
And playing the crab game meant that there is only one way to defeat that boss, no control for the player over how they face this boss. This is not a bad thing, but we have done that so many times already! I would like something else for a change. The core idea of games is to give control to the player; this is what I am calling for.


Well, if you add a bit of randomness, it will contrast the static design you are using in most of the game and may stand out like a sore thumb. If you put more to create an even mix, you risk letting the possibilities run out of control and end up with the players being able to break the game.

Games that use procedural generated levels get a free pass by keeping low graphical profile and a none serious theme so that no one would care that all the rooms are actually copies of each other with different enemies and decorations sprinkled in (Rogue Legacy and The Binding of Isac). A more serious game like Castlevania would never get away with such a thing and the rooms must be hand crafted into the beautiful art works they are and made challenging with carefully placed enemies; that can not be the result of randomness.
A good balance of randomness and order can come from the fact that you only need the order at the first few times the player clears the room, any change in the room after that would be welcomed.