Game Debate #97: Castlevania Symphony of the Night

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

This debate has sparked my interest enough to get me to give this game another go.  As mentioned before, I tried to play this game several years ago and made it a decent way into the game.  I got away from the game, not due to lack of interest, but because of other things going on at the time and after a while too much time had passed for me to just pickup where I left off.  As a few nights ago, I started from scratch and I'm attempting my first full playthrough.  I'm going to try and do it without a guide, so we'll see how far I can get playing it that way.  Despite the fact that I did start this game a while ago, it's fair to say I remember maybe 5%, so it's sort of like seeing everything for the first time.  

[GPX | 1,370]

On 1/27/2024 at 4:22 AM, Gentlegamer said:

Wonder Boy III - The Dragon's Trap

Zelda II - The Adventure of Link

The Battle of Olympus

You can argue that every foundational game is derived from Atari and the NES/Master System. However, you can also argue that a foundational game is the first of its kind for whatever platform it’s on. Remembering also that a large group of PS1 fans might never have tried the NES/MS. 

With the examples you highlighted, certainly there were platform, exploration and some light RPG elements. Castlevania SOTN magnified them elements to make it feel like a genuine mishmash of genres, to sort of create a new genre in itself. Kind of like mixing colors to create a new color.

[GPX | 1,370]

On 1/27/2024 at 4:42 AM, koifish said:

Only ever played it once, so I'd say no, it was just easy all along. IIRC I played and beat CV1 around 2007-2008 and then played Symphony a year later, so my perception of difficulty is likely very different from others when they played symphony.

Incidentally, I downloaded and played Symphony again, yesterday, for the first time since 2009 probably, and it's still way too easy. That said, going naked is proving to be kind of fun. You don't steamroll everything and punching things to death has comedic value. I might play a bit more, but not confident it would raise my score. It's as @wongojack points out, usually I play symphony and its clones but get bored because they become trivial hallway mapping sims. Is there a mode where you don't get levels? That might be more fun. Then again, I got bored of hollow knight because I thought the game wasn't hard, just heavy on damage sponges. Symphony with no levels would probably be similar. 

I like most pre-Symphony castlevania games, but if I had to pick one then it'd be Bloodlines, no contest. It's short and sweet, a really top-quality action game, which you can tell was made by real professionals. Controls are tight, player movement is smooth and flexible without being forgiving, and the obstacles are tough but can be learned, yet they also aren't just rote memorization and reproduction. Add to it that the levels are each unique and well-paced without being too long, and the amazing soundtrack, and you get an incredible game, finished with visuals and sound effects that are icing on top of a perfect cake.

I think the length is a key point of difference between us here. I'd rather have a tightly crafted action game that's only an hour long but which pushes me for that entire hour, than slog through a long, drawn-out game whose only real challenge is how much time I have to waste. "So much going on" is meaningless when none of it is memorable or engaging. Note above how I played CV1 and Symphony at around the same time. I can remember some parts of symphony visually, and I definitely remember the soundtrack, but nothing really sticks out that is truly memorable and notable. Compare that to CV1, where I still can flash a warm smile at how good it felt to finally beat death and his bullshit level 5. I feel that the Quantity/Quality metric really shows itself here. Symphony clearly put the former above the latter, and was hurt for it. Who cares if there's more stuff to do if none of it is interesting? A pile of good baby toys has "more stuff to do" than does one good book, but I wouldn't choose the toys.

Ultimately symphony is just a fundamental break from what I like about castlevania and so I have little reason to personally rate it highly. Like Peter Gabriel Genesis and Phil Collins Genesis, old and new castlevania share little besides their name and certain characters/trademarks.

I’ve never actually played Castlevania on the NES. My first experience with a Castlevania game was on the SNES with Super Castlevania IV. It’s one of my favorite SNES games of all time, so I do enjoy the shorter arcadey-levels format. 

I don’t necessarily feel SOTN is less quality than the earlier Castlevanias, but I can see to a degree it might put people off if they’re more into their action gaming rather than the explorative gaming. I guess the main difference between us, is that the explorative nature of SOTN dilutes the core values you seek in your Castlevania, whereas I see it as an enhancement to the core premise of its earlier games.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

On 1/26/2024 at 1:18 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

I see you @RegularGuyGamer.  You should elaborate 

I never played enough of SOTN to have an opinion. I started the game like 5 times and just never picked it back up. Exploring games just end up pissing me off.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]

2 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

I never played enough of SOTN to have an opinion. I started the game like 5 times and just never picked it back up. Exploring games just end up pissing me off.

Ok, you voted the wrong choice 

[MagusSmurf | 577]

Symphony of the Night's particular area design and balancing often means new areas you explore and even some bosses have zero difficulty and struggle to damage you even your first time through. Like, has the Death boss battle killed you? Do you even remember what he does in the fight? I'm no for both and I don't think the former is because I'm particularly good at the game. Fellow same-series Metroidvanias Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, and Order of Ecclesia heavily mitigate this big issue of SotN's while still having map exploration and RPG mechanics. I don't think Symphony of the Night is even a notably longer game than the latter three. Symphony of the Night is good and I appreciate its ambition for its time period and some of its weird quirks but I don't think it's as well put together of a game as the other four I mentioned. (It is better than Circle of the Moon and Harmony of Dissonance though)

If anyone wants to make the case for why Symphony of the Night's actual gameplay and game design (as opposed to being nostalgic, influential, 10/10 voice acting, or whatever) is better than those latter games in its own series, I'm all ears.

[Sumez | 2,967]

3 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

Fellow same-series Metroidvanias Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, and Order of Ecclesia heavily mitigate this big issue of SotN's

Sounds like it might have been a while since you played Aria of Sorrow

I have no idea what any boss in that game does. 

Edited January 28 by Sumez

[koifish | 556]

10 hours ago, GPX said:

I’ve never actually played Castlevania on the NES. My first experience with a Castlevania game was on the SNES with Super Castlevania IV. It’s one of my favorite SNES games of all time, so I do enjoy the shorter arcadey-levels format. 

I don’t necessarily feel SOTN is less quality than the earlier Castlevanias, but I can see to a degree it might put people off if they’re more into their action gaming rather than the explorative gaming. I guess the main difference between us, is that the explorative nature of SOTN dilutes the core values you seek in your Castlevania, whereas I see it as an enhancement to the core premise of its earlier games.

That sounds accurate. Amusing observation, I lump Super 4 in with Symphony as I find it too slow-paced and relatively easy. Your assessment of exploration sounds more relevant overall however.

4 hours ago, MagusSmurf said:

Symphony of the Night's particular area design and balancing often means new areas you explore and even some bosses have zero difficulty and struggle to damage you even your first time through. Like, has the Death boss battle killed you? Do you even remember what he does in the fight? I'm no for both and I don't think the former is because I'm particularly good at the game. Fellow same-series Metroidvanias Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, and Order of Ecclesia heavily mitigate this big issue of SotN's while still having map exploration and RPG mechanics. I don't think Symphony of the Night is even a notably longer game than the latter three. Symphony of the Night is good and I appreciate its ambition for its time period and some of its weird quirks but I don't think it's as well put together of a game as the other four I mentioned. (It is better than Circle of the Moon and Harmony of Dissonance though)

If anyone wants to make the case for why Symphony of the Night's actual gameplay and game design (as opposed to being nostalgic, influential, 10/10 voice acting, or whatever) is better than those latter games in its own series, I'm all ears.

It's like how on my fist quest I discovered you can't even use subweapons because several of them are ridiculously OP. Knives can kill most things quickly and from a safe distance, and the stopwatch basically invalidates several boss fights.

[Sumez | 2,967]

How many times do people who call CV4 "easy" usually die on a single playthrough??

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,013]

12 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Ok, you voted the wrong choice 

Did I vote?? Lol I can't see it. I just put never played it, never will bc I honestly don't think I can give the game a play through. Nothing gets me more uninterested in a game where I have to get lost and back track before making progress. Add that to the hype behind this game, I don't think there's anyway it could ever live up to it's reputation.

If I had a chance to play with when I only had 5 PS1 games and only got a game once every 4 months and the occasional rental, I think I would've had the determination to play through out of pure necessity. But being an adult and having 1000 other games, I would rather play the new Star Wars Survivor game, put 20 hrs into Star Field or finish Mario Wonder. I guess playing other Metroidvania games put me off to playing thee Metroidvania. Sad.

[Rhuno | 108]

On 1/27/2024 at 5:43 PM, RegularGuyGamer said:

I never played enough of SOTN to have an opinion. I started the game like 5 times and just never picked it back up. Exploring games just end up pissing me off.

I'm pretty much in the same boat; I've never been able to get into SOTN. 

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

I made it to the inverted castle last night.  

I will say this.  The longer you play the game, the more you enjoy it.  At the start of the game, I was only playing in 30 minute spurts and then taking a brake for a day.  Now that I'm well into the game, I'm playing for hours at a time and not wanting to stop, and only stopping because it's midnight and I have to work the next day.  

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]

You play the early game for the challenge

The play the endgame to wreck shit with the broken-ass weapon of your choice 

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

I managed to get the Crissaegrim last night.  Everyone told me this thing breaks the game.  I figured it couldn't possibly break the game too bad.  

30 seconds after finding it I was like:

 

 

Edited January 31 by TDIRunner

[Sumez | 2,967]

Crissaegrim is absolutely ridiculous

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

19 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Crissaegrim is absolutely ridiculous

I've heard it breaks the game.......

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]

In Harmony of Despair, every player worked to dual wield Crissaegrims (or whatever name they had in that game) because it was so OP

[spacepup | 2,405]

Harmony of Despair was so much fun.  I'm so glad I was able to play that while it was still alive and well.  Sad that it is basically lost to time.  Back when it was popular, it was REALLY fun!!

[ZeldaFreak | 3,600]

6 hours ago, spacepup said:

Harmony of Despair was so much fun.  I'm so glad I was able to play that while it was still alive and well.  Sad that it is basically lost to time.  Back when it was popular, it was REALLY fun!!

I wish I could've played it back when it first came out, I would've really enjoyed it I bet.

[GiygasKaz | 2]

9. Although I'll always consider Super Castlevania IV the peak of the franchise as I prefer linear games, SOTN does as much as it can to justify the metroidvania formula and the backtracking is rarely an annoyance. Still stands as a genre standard for sure.

Edited February 1 by GiygasKaz

[TDIRunner | 2,744]

I finished the game tonight and even went back in and tried a clear a little more of the map.  My stats as of this evening are below.  I did end up needing a guide in a few areas, and towards the end I used a map to locate most of the areas I was missing.  I think I will go back and try to knock out the last few % points tomorrow.  I don't know how long a typical playthrough for this game usually lasts for someone who is familiar with the layout, but it obviously took me a pretty long time with lots of extra backtracking looking for stuff that I missed the first time around.  It sort of reminds me of the days when I didn't know Super Metroid like the back of my hand.  

In general, I think this game deserves the praise it gets.  I thought the challenge was pretty tough, although it's worth mentioning that I've never been very skilled at the few Castlevania games I've played.  I definitely needed the Crissaegrim to beat the game.  The game is absolutely beautiful and makes me wish we hadn't ignored 2D games during that era the way most did.  The soundtrack is also amazing.  The boss fights were more frequent and unique compared to Super Metroid and of course the leveling system and inventory system was completely new for me.  I wish the inventory system was easier to organize, but that's a minor gripe.  I also wish some of the areas in the reverted castle didn't have as much slow down.  This game definitely makes me want to look into more of the Metroidvania style Castlevania games.  

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

Slightly on topic. As a budget conscious gamer who prefers physical games, is the PS4 compilation version worth getting? I hear its a sub par port of the PSP version, but at half the going rate of the PS1 version plus the inclusion of Rondo, I feel like I need to consider it. Thanks.

[Kguillemette | 1,545]

On 1/28/2024 at 4:27 AM, Sumez said:

How many times do people who call CV4 "easy" usually die on a single playthrough??

"Easier" maybe? It feels so smooth and welcoming and fair compared to the NES games, where halfway through the original I'm ready to rage quit.

[phart010 | 1,707]

6 hours ago, Kguillemette said:

Slightly on topic. As a budget conscious gamer who prefers physical games, is the PS4 compilation version worth getting? I hear its a sub par port of the PSP version, but at half the going rate of the PS1 version plus the inclusion of Rondo, I feel like I need to consider it. Thanks.

I don’t know if the PSP version was reformatted to the widescreen or anything like that, so can’t speak to those things. I think the most notable change was that on PSP they redid the voice acting. So the PS4 version has the PSP dialogue, not the original cheesy dialogue from PS1. 

It probably doesn’t matter which version you play. Just don’t play the Saturn version… even though it has extra content, it’s considered the worst version due to not being optimized for the hardware 

Edited February 2 by phart010

[wongojack | 217]

I played the Xbox digital version which is still for sale and even goes on sale from time to time.  Has the original dialog, but there were a few of the cut-scenes from the exterior castle missing (those images of the castle flying into the sky and/or flipping over).  It also added an optional enhanced graphics feature and a way to re-size the screen using adjustments to the horizontal and vertical edges.

It played fine on the Xbox, and I never even once wished I was playing the original.  Probably the biggest problem is the D-Pad on the X controllers aren't that great, but the analog worked pretty well most of the time.

Not sure why they couldn't have put the Saturn content into the Xbox version, but, by the end, I was done playing the game anyway.

There is a physical version of the Xbox version on a Konami compilation disk, but you will have to pay to get that.

Edited February 2 by wongojack