So, I ask this: what do you prefer? A game that simply focuses on exploration and keeps the difficulty at a minimum, or one that'll constantly test your gaming skills? Or would you prefer somewhere inbetween (I'd like to think Circle of the Moon qualifies as a good medium ground.)

Here's the big flaw with this entire issue. I beat Castlevania Chronicles, on original mode, about 60 times in a row already. Yes it was difficult the first two or three times through, but after that the difficulty level stops increasing. (i.e. the difficulty level goes beyond the HARD setting if you beat the game more than twice sequentially on original mode) My first time through took me a week, after that I had everything down to a set sequence of moves and boss strategies. And even though the difficulty kept increasing, I had no trouble beating the game from start to ending in a single sitting. So where one person may find this game completely insane, another might not. The save points and spawn locations were quite fair. Each new level there is a save, each new level section there is a spawn, until you run out of lives, then it's back to the beginning of the level. Why might you ask is this fair? Because it's all about figuring out "how" to beat the game, not just beating it. If you try one way to beat a boss and it doesn't work... try another way! Maybe a different special weapon, or a different method of attacking, or even not attacking. I found a very interesting method of killing the Doppelganger where I don't even have to move to kill him! My biggest problem with Strider 2 was I beat it the day I bought it, in about 80 minutes, and never touched it since. It was too easy, and there is absolutely nothing worse than beating a game that offered no challenge at all (because there is no reward for beating it). As for Symphony of the night, well it tried to make up for the fact anyone could beat by adding in a lot of scavenger hunting, which was completely pointless outside those individuals that enjoy exploring and getting every single item available. Did it add to the replay-ability, yes... did it add to the game-play, a little... was it at all necessary to beat the game, no! And where it may take a person weeks to do everything possible within the game, it can be beaten in a single sitting. So then it becomes, do I want to "challenge" myself to find every item? Which really isn't a challenge but more a matter of time, which can be said the same for games like Castlevania Chronicles (it's just a matter of time before you either get lucky, or figure out a working strategy to beat the game). Now Circle of the Moon had aspects of both game styles, and special modes to satisfy each player's needs. Which is what Konami should strive for if they want a single game style to appeal to a bigger audience. But there are those who don't want to "explore" at all... they want hardcore fast-paced reflex based arcade action (with the most exploration being choose your path)! And that section of the gaming public should not be excluded. Games such as Dracula's Curse and Rondo of Blood did very well for their time, and believe it or not the gamers that bought those titles are still playing games today! Who's to say they wouldn't want a similar game for a nex-gen console! From what I understand Castlevania Chronicles sold very well both in Japan as well as in American (so there is definitely a market for such games). In conclusion... there is no "best" setup for saves, spawns, lives, etc. It's completely based on game style, and the whole idea of having different styles is because we all don't like the same things. But no one section of gaming should fade out of existence just because it's "considered" not with the times. I personally would purchase a remake of Rondo of Blood before I would ever buy Symphony of the Night II (if either existed). I just prefer the first style of gaming more. -Drakul

This is pretty much the response I had expected from the typical, big-time Castlevania fan.

I'm not sure how well Chronicles sold in Japan, but I was surprised to find it mentioned on the top 10 selling games of October for America, so it must've done fairly well.

Was I the only purpose who enjoyed Strider 2 for the sale fact that it was just mindless fun? Sure, if they'd limited the continuing, then it'd be a better game - but flying off walls, slashing ninjas - I enjoyed the hell out of it. I still pop it in every once in awhile, just to play a level or two.

The problem with your statement of Dracula's Curse and Rondo of Blood selling well for their time is that video games (and design) has evolved and people want to see something new and spectacular. You and I still play Castlevania 3 on a semi-regular basis, where I'm willing to bet a good majority of people have hawked them to the dark realm of Funcoland (or worse). If a game were to be brought out like that, they see another side-scrolling game with 2D graphics - we find it enjoyable because we've grown up with it, but they see it as tired and outdated. Still, as long as we have companies like Konami and Capcom who still churn out a nice variety of games to keep us satisfied and aren't entirely aimed at the general market, then we won't have to worry about too much in the long run.

I have to claim myself one of those lucky few who have beaten CV Chronicles on both Arrange (Normal difficulty) and Original mode, and actually prefers Original (I hate the Arrange music). I think there is an advantage to both explorational and challenging games in the Castlevania series. It has succeeded in doing both fantastically well. Maybe I am still a little too much of an old-school gamer, but I tend to lean a little more toward the side of challenge. While I still rank Symphony of the Night as one of the best PSX games ever made, and one of the best Castlevanias as well, beating that game - even getting all four endings - pales next to the satisfaction I got from finally knocking off Original Chronicles. True, the game has more than its share of fantastically difficult moments (Stage 5-3 comes to mind immediately) and the ending is decidedly less than satisfactory, although the age of the game is a factor in that. What in my opinion makes the challenge of Chronicles worthwhile is the strategy. Much of the same appeal can be found in the explorational games like Symphony of the Night and Circle of the Moon, especially in boss fights. The simple fun of having so much to seek out and discover adds a lot to the games. The problem comes afterward, in your second or third time through the game, once you've found virtually everything. After that, the replay value of such games falls off dramatically. Especially in the case of Symphony, where items like the Crissaegrim can make an already low-challenge game blindingly easy. When the right combination of items can knock off Dracula himself in five seconds flat (Alucard Shield / Shield Rod) the only real challenge left can be found in forcing yourself not to use your powerful weapons, which to me is a poor substitute for real in-game challenge. Once you know where everything is, the appeal of low-challenge, high-exploration games becomes rather too small for me. Of course, even the action-oriented games can err too far on the side of challenge, and the series has done that quite a bit. Haunted Castle comes to mind immediately, a game where strategy is impossible. The sheer legions of Igors thrown at you in Stage 3 make it ludicrously difficult, survivable only through luck. The same goes for the start of Stage 5, where the elevator ride is effectively guaranteed to take off half your life. There is simply not enough you can do to avoid the damaging platforms. The Castlevania Adventure for GB has many of the same problems. The last two stages are seemingly nothing but a succession of near-impossible jumps and climbs, where one mistake is instant death. To stop rambling and sum up, I prefer old-style, "traditional" Castlevania games where the focus is on challenging the player, but only when the game is balanced enough that it avoids total frustration. I think exploration games last longer on the first trip through, but lose their lustre once they become too easily learned. Circle of the Moon has done a good job keeping a balance between the two, but I still find myself going back to the action-oriented games more often. Perhaps I am simply dated, but I would rather have the challenge. -Sidian Fallenstar

Not much else to add - some very good points.

I too have been a CastleVania fan all my life (well since CastleVania on the NES) I've beaten most of them but I'm still working on CotM and Chronicles. I would have to say that the completely action based CastleVanias (1,3,4 etc...) although still very fun, can be a bit frustrating to a lot of people. I agree fully that Chronicles' Original mode is ludicrous unless you are very good many people will never see the ending of the game. (Yes I know that's already been said by a LOT of people) Play the Arrange mode it's still hard but not in a Straightjacket-happy sorta way ;-) SotN and CotM are more the type of game which is preferable to me. I still like the others but I like a mix of exploration as well as action. I didn't sleep much for days after getting SotN, exploring the castle kept me glued to my PlayStation, I'm sure others went through this as well. Personally I hope Konami continues with this concept. The ability to improve your character throughout the game also helps players who aren't as good to win. This doesn't necessarily make the game as easy as some people think, those who build-up levels and collect weapons will have an easier time than those who don't. I agree SotN was a little too easy for my taste, Dracula's last form barely lasts a minute for me (that comes with being a Level 75 and having a HUGE arsenal of the best weapons and spells in the game). But don't think for a minute CotM is that easy!! CotM would be in my opinion the perfect mid-range CastleVania game and I hope Konami continues to make more games like it. Al Chapman

Circle of the Moon, to me, stands as a true balance between difficult gameplay and nonlinear exploration. If you're skilled enough, you can probably blow through the game without leveling up or going much out of your way to find power-ups. But for everyone else, if you take your time and fully explore every nook and cranny, then you find yourself having much more leeway when fighting. Even still, Dracula still requires quite a bit of strategy, even if you are extremely high powered.

The best example of this is the incredibly well designed Japanese Saturn shooter Radiant Silvergun. You only get a limited number of continues, but the longer you play the game, the more continues you rank, and the more powerful your ship gets. Eventually, even the most feeble-reflexed player on the planet will be able to beat it, if they put some time into it. Mars Matrix for the Dreamcast used a similar system, though not quite to the same effect.

About the type of game, well, I think that it's better to have a well-balanced game, like you said, Circle of the Moon is probably the best example, the game is rather long, you have to look for things (I would've liked it more if there were more stuff, but oh well, I guess that maybe the next GBA Castlevania will use a cartridge with more memory), and the difficulty actually makes you lose sometimes despite what level you have, unlike SotN that is more like a walk in the park if you're at a high level, and you'll only lose 1 or 2 times (if you're not very good that is). Games with of extremely high levels of difficulty are rather annoying, I mean, yeah, it's cool to finish a hard game, even gratifying, but who of us is ready and willing to get an ulcer just because of something annoying? I mean, life is full of problems, and when we play videogames I don't think we do it looking forward to get even more pissed with instant cheap deaths or unfairly strong enemies. I'm a patient man, but after losing too many lifes... I'm human y'know, I also shout at my tv and sometimes even throw the controller... most of the times we play video games we do it to enjoy and maybe even relax for a while, and not to get even more angry... of course, an extremely easy game is not pleasant either.

I was hoping I'd get a letter like this - it reassures me in that I'm not alone. I loved games that kept me busy for a long time when I was younger, because I'd buy maybe four games a year. That $50 had to last me for awhile. Given that I have jobs to pay for games now, I don't need to spend as much time with one game.

Gaming has been evolving over these many years (by which I mean adapting, changing) and for the most part I think improving. Yet like biological evolution, sometimes extraneous remnants from the past can take a long time to filter out, and I think one such characteristic of games that needs filtering out is the lack of variable difficulty settings. In my mind, this seems like the perfect solution for this problem. If developers would simply take the extra time, a player would be able to select whatever level of difficulty they deem appropriate for themselves at any given time. "Newbie" gamers, or people like me who tend to, for lack of a better term, "suck" at action-oriented games should be able to tone down the hazards so that they can enjoy themselves, while the gaming gods who can finish Chronicles on original mode can still satisfy all of their masochistic needs. It seems so simple to me, that I don't understand why this hasn't become the standard. I would like to applaud Silent Hill 2 for this.

Despite the fact that this letter was actually cut off at the bottom, it hits the nail right smack in the middle of the head. Video gaming is evolving, and one of the reasons why 2D games (and other niche genres, like shooters) aren't popular anymore is that they fail to innovate. They don't really offer what we haven't seen before. Fixing some of the age-old traditions that have worn out their welcome (no variable difficulty level, limited) is a good place to start.

The problem with varying difficulty levels is that they either aren't balanced very well, or people just ignore them. How many games have claimed to have an "easy" mode, yet the game remains incredibly difficult? Or, worse yet, like many older Konami games, you won't get an ending unless you beat it on the Hardest level. For the other case, ask any Mega Man fanatic about Mega Man X5. Most will tell you it wasn't very good because it was too easy - yet all of these people apparently missed the "Extreme" difficulty setting right in the Options menu. It seems that even the ideal solution doesn't quite fix everything.

Silent Hill 2 was an incredibly well done example. If you weren't interested in the whole survival horror routine or solving moronic puzzles, you could just turn them off and enjoy the exploration. Those who still wanted that atmosphere - like I did - is free to turn them on.

Hi, I think that circle of the moon was way too easy. Along with the password system in castlevania 2 ( i finally got an original copy for xmas and i finished it in under a day). A mix of Rondo of Blood and Nitm would be the best in my books (especially cuz Richter is my fav Belmont). Also they should bring back the name Belmont. I was disapointed when i heard Schneider Belmont became Reinhart Schneider and then when i found the hero of circle of the moon was nathan graves (Am i the only one who wished you coulda picked to go Hugh Baldwin instead?). And finally, am i the only person who liked the werewolf boss on the X68000? Sure it was helluva tough, but I liked fighting it, it shows the TRUE skill of a castlevania fan. The worst bit in a Castlevania game has to be the impossibly difficult jumps in the first gameboy CV game. I think the next game they develop should have a main adventure/RPG mode like Nitm, but also have a seperate side-scrolling action mode. Maybe put it in the game the same way as they put Richter in Nitm (and maria in the saturn version aswell), but change the style of the game to the "old school" way. And whatever Konami do they shouldn't add in the replaying with a different character class thing they did in circle of the moon, that just pissed me off. And they need to bring back "Theme of Simon Belmont", that is one of the best Castlevania music ieces i have ever heard . One last thing, the next game should have the characters looking damn cool like Simon did in Chronicles (man that red hair is soooo cool) -~Jamie "wishes he looked like Alucard" Strain~

Personally, the werewolf boss was one of the coolest bosses in Chronicles, and one of the standouts in the series - certainly a lot moreso than the respective fights in the Dracula X games. The first time I thought I had outwitted that damn thing when it had thrown everything on the screen at me - and RIPPED THE CLOCKHAND OFF THE WALL, I was stunned. Konami's designers have always been good at throwing players for a loop here and there.

A bonus game with slightly restructured design would be great. The Richter (and Maria) games in Symphony of the Night were tacked on - with a few minor changes, it could've altered into an old-school game.

I'd have to disagree with Circle of the Moon being easy though.There were more than a few times that I ran through the hallways with low health, hoping that the God of Save Points would soon smile upon me.

When it comes to the difficultly it hard to draw the line, you have Chronicles where no matter how many times the game has handed you your booty in a sack you still go back for more. Why? Well two reasons 1. you like me we're idiots and 2. you can look at that game and just smile at it. I still play the orginial mode, it may kick my ass, but its the satisifacation that i will enjoy once i beat it. Now at the other end we have games with a good difficulty, SotN is a good example, having grown up with Castlevania SotN was a little different with the chance to explore the Castle to get the multpile endings. I enjoy games that test my skills more, cause i have to get better and sooner or later, usually later i will beat the game. However most games today to service most of us old guy gamers that played the old Sega master system or NES have done the difficulty level so most of old guys can play at the old levels cause most of us can waltz through the new games on easy levels, and the new comers can set the game on easy to get use to it. Lets be serious how many of us, laughed when we saw easy for the Arrange Mode, i did, just thank Megami-sama i didn't set it for difficult. However once i beat it on normal, i'll have to set it for difficult cause i have to. I guess in the end, we castlevania fans may bitch about the problems in the Castlevania games, how many of us would give them up or wish for them to be easier? in truth none of us would, we have fond memories of wanting to smash that game or chuck the controller across the room, but in the end we always go back to that game plug her back in and go at it full force. I still go at Orginial mode because i'll be damned if Castlevania is going to beat me. So we may prefer games that are easier and offer exploration, but one night we will plug that game in and set it to difficult and just go hardcore like the days of old, for us old dogs we enjoy challenge. -Cruel Angel's Thesis

Calling us gameplayers "idiots" brought a smile to my face - because, from a certain point of view, it's damn true. Imagine yourself being viewed from the eyes of your parents or siblings or significant other as they watch you try mercilessly to beat what amounts to a silly game - I still would like to know what they honestly think of us.

That, and the rest of the letter pretty much sums up my own feelings towards the series. There's been moments where I'd swear to God I've never to play the game again, yet I still come back, and proclaim to enjoy it when it's all over. Still, the Arrange mode in Chronicles is a great way to just like back and the enjoy the Castlevania atmosphere without having your gaming skills be set to 11.

I guess the question of Exploration vs Difficulty really needs to be more clearly defined. Difficulty is easily defined, either by how far apart the saves/respawn points are, whether save or continues are limited, and whether or not the monster and insta kill ratio is high enough to really ramp the challenge. Exploration is another matter. It's a staple of the modern adventure and rpg games. You can't have a game like that without allowing freewil for the character to go about and find shit, items, secrets, what have you. But, for action games, exploration is a rarely used device. Take Mario 64: How many different ways were there to do practically anything in that game, especially considering the amount of moves the character has. CV 64 would have been a better game if it hadn;t been so linear. Setting up huge levels and giving you free reighn to explore portions of it, whether ot not where you were was a necessary part of the game. In the end, my opinon is that the best games would be the ones that challenge you enough to keep you cussing at the screen (who of us hasn't at least once hated a section of a level but loved it when you learned how to get past it), and yet still brings in wide areas, a number of moves and items to explore it with, and at least a basic reason for thh exploration. -Darkmoon

There were a few levels in CV64 that weren't linear (the Castle Entrance, the Castle Center, etc) and I'd personally say these were the weakest parts of the game. Maybe this is because, like most 3D games, your character walks far too slowly, and aren't given much of a direction, leaving you to wander around aimlessly (especially in that stupid garden maze.)

Both types of gaming styles have their own pro's and con's, For example, a game that has alot of exploration will probably give you more freedom to do what you want and to try and make you spend more of those hours finding little things here and there (i.e. like Alucard in the confession room in the Royal Chapel in SOTN) would probably be bad at the replayability 'cause you know where everything is from last time and it'd be one of those games where it would be catching dust in your room (Anybody remember Resident Evil, Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3?) The game that tests the gamer's abilities and skillz will probably be the one that is played more frequently, because of its difficulty (thats what made Super Ghouls and Goblins, and the Megaman Series so famous) even nowadays I can't help but pick up Megaman X from my closet and toss it into my SNES. My personal preference is the games with the difficulty. If a game doesn't have difficulty and you brag about beating a game like that, that would be like a fourteen year old bragging to another fourteen year old that he can whoop a three year old's ass. -Vampiro170

Symphony of the Night has a lot of fun little touches like that, especially the weapons. It's the little things that matter.

On the flip side, the overt difficulty level of Super Ghouls and Ghosts simply scares me off - I don't have fun playing it to begin with.

Hi mista Kurt :D I liketh the games with exploration and minimumum difficulty! :D I don't have game skills to be tested, so the other's are hard(and scary!) :( Like Chronicles, the wolf lady was creepy-ish :D Oh, I think they should have a werepanther main character in the next CV! :D Zip zoom zam! :D - Jazz(That's me!) :D

....Indeed.

It was a nice feeling of gaming brotherhood to read about all the hair ripping madness that games can spawn in us. But, that's part of the fun... And I actually beat Super Ghosts and Goblins. All the way through. Twice. And it took me FOREVER and I almost stabbed myself in the face with a fricking dull garden shovel as a result, but when I beat it? Maaann was it good. -EomerKingofRohan

You are truly insane. You also have my complete and utter respect.

I've been a fan of Castlevania since day one, and i've played and beat every Castlevania game out thier except Circle of the Moon. Out of all the Castlevania games i've played, my top five favorites are as follows. 1.) Castlevania Symphony of the Night. 2.) Castlevania Legacy of Darkness. 3.) Castlevania Simons Quest 4.) Castlevania Draculas Curse and 5.) Super Castlevania Four. As you can tell i prefer the more explorations and RPG type feel to the Castlevania games, that's because they elaborate on a plot that is good, the Castlevania games have a good interesting story line and the games that show that more keep you playing them over and over. It is my opinion that it doesn't matter how hard the game is, if the game has good re-play value, examples are, multiple endings, differnt characters and more exploring. Then the player will play the game thru numerous times and find something differnt, but if you make the game extremely hard, Castlevania Chronicles, the original mode, which insn't that hard once you find the game that once they beat it once, they put it away and never look at it again. So i think that they need to make more Castlevania games like Symphony of the Night, or Legacy of Darkness, because let's face it, the age of 2D games and level based games is dead, and no new gamers will want to play a 2D game on the PS2, so if Konami want's to keep up and make money, they are going to have to update Castlevania. -Axes4u

I think I'll agree with every point up until the last - which is a good launching point for the next mailbag! Opinions on CV64 have been wildly split. Can Castlevania (or any old, NES-era series) really work in 3D? Can you still get a fun game, or are games inherently more enjoyable in the second dimension? Write your thoughts and have it on my desk by morning.

-Kurt