When it comes to games being converted from 2D to 3D, you have a number of problems. The first one is the style. In most of the older CV games, they had a similar look and feel. Oh sure they'd add and subtract here and there in each game, but when I first played CV3, I had already played the first two, so I just fell into it, because it played like the first. It had the second characters and passwords, but it felt the same. The same goes for the entire Mega Man series. When you change a game from 2D to 3D it all feels so different, and it's difficult to keep that same feeling there. More often than not, 2D games that were made 3D aere looked upon harshly (Like Contra), but the NES games that I can think of that had succesful sequels on any later systems (like Metal Gear, Final Fantasy or Zelda) already had a "Flat 3D" feel, so the transition wasn't as awkward. However, the biggest possible problem is the fans. They love the original, and will be damned if the new one sucks. Very often, the most drastic changes are looked upon the most harshly. SotN was the first full RPG Castlevania I can think of, but it was still 2D Castlevania, and had that similar feel to it. However, putting a predominantly 2D game into a 3D setting is like when an underground band polishes it sound with computers and the like. It's got better possibilities, and can be the best in the long run, but you've taken out what these fans went for. So you have big shoes to fill by doing something like that. By changing it, you'd be forced to change certain elements that give the series its charm, or fun, or nostalgia. Any person who's played a 2D Castlevania can name at least some of the special weapons, but how would the axe work in a complete 3D environment? It could, but would feel so different that it would lose what made the game well loved. I'm not saying that the game would be bad, 3D games can be absolutely awesome, it'd just be different. People will often try a game based on its name, like CV, or FF, but it has to stay up to the standa rds that made that series so loved to keep the fans. It'd almost be better to change the name so people won't have that original image of the old games when they play it. This has been rather drawn out, so all it comes down to is, a 3D version of a 2D game can work, but so much would change that you have to wonder if it's the same game you know and love. The designers have to do quite a bit of extra work to keep it that way. I personally will first, last, and always be a 2D gamer at heart. -Moonen

Well put. So well put, in fact, that both you've covered every point I was going to bring up in my introduction and saved me valuable typing time! Cheers!

I like the comment about the fans though - in a completely hypothetical situation, let's say a new Castlevania comes out, and it's God's Gift to the Gaming World. There would still be at least a small number of people that would hate it, simply because it's not "classic". Look at what happened when the Final Fantasy series went 3D - the h3rdc0re fans decried it, saying that it lacked "gameplay" and sucked because the graphics weren't sprites. Then again, Final Fantasy fans are known to be absolute friggin' idiots, so I guess that falls into line (how's that for the pot calling the kettle black?)

I'm forced to admit that I have not played either of the 3D Castlevanias (or Rondo of Blood) but I think considering that my last contribution to this column was cut off in the middle, I should get a certain measure of leeway.   Though I'll conceed that a great many of the 2D classics have seen less than stelar 3D conversions, to claim that no 2D franchise can successfully enter the third dimention would be a severe overstatement. Consider the still popular Mega Man series; gaming doesn't get much more classic than that. Traditionally a side scrolling, platform shooter, one might say that the only "true" Mega Man can be a 2D one. Yet the 3D Mega Man Legends games are highly aclaimed. The same could be said of the jump from Mario World to Mario 64. What has made those games so successful when the Castlevanias have largely been a flop? Having not played C64 or Legacy of Darkness I can only speculate, but it seems to me that the best 3D titles usually have the following characteristics in common: -heavier emphasis placed on exploration and enviornment than merely defeating enemies -intuative control scheme and responsive controls -fewer jumps, and when jumps are required, not so tricky as platformers -appropriate camera angles, especially during jumps and fights -some kind of "lock on" feature when engaging in combat, enabling fast-paced action Those last two are especially important, in my opinion. Poor camera angles and the inability to accurately aim at your foe can quickly spoil the whole experience. For instance I've recently tried my hand at Tenchu 2, one of the more frustrating games I've played for just those reasons. Trying to fight a boss in that game is almost headache-inducing, as your character fumbles around like an idiot, turns his back to his assailant, and gets cut to ribbons before you can even get your bearings. I understand that the controls just take some getting used to, but why should they have to? Consider instead Devil May Cry, with control so refined that in a short while you'll be able to take on a whole room-full of horrors in the blink of an eye. As for the N64 Castlevanias, I'm guessing they fail in at least 3 out of 5 of the qualities I've listed.   Christopher Lundgren

Considering you've never played Castlevania 64, it's frightening how correct you are. There is a lock-on feature, but the rest of the points you've made are, for the most part, poorly implemented.

I loved Devil May Cry. A LOT. Some of the reviewers went so far to say that it recaptured the essence of many old-school action games, and I'd definitely agree with them. Devil May Cry is, quite simply, the best example of a 3D action game out there. Dante handles like an absolute dream - the sluggishness found in nearly every 3D game is nowhere to be found. If Castlevania played more like this, then we'd all be much happier.

Well, I believe that it really is a case by case situation. In the case of most old-school games (Castlevania, Mega Man, Contra) they were simply meant for 2D gaming. I mean CV64 basically sucked compared to SotN, CotM, and even the classics like Dracula's Curse, and I'll play X4 over Megaman Legends any day. Of course, in some situations, 2D and 3D transitions honestly don't matter that much (the entire Final Fantasy Series, 4,5, and 6 were just as good as 7, 9 and 10) However, sometimes when a 2D game makes the transition it's alright (Mario 64, Sonic Adventure), and on at least on occasion, it was sheer genuis one (or should I say two) of the best games ever made. Yes, I'm talking about Metal Gear Solid. MGS1 and 2 were both ten times as good as the original NES Metal Gears. So, to recap it's really a case by case basis. Sometimes is worse, better, and sometimes the same, because there's one overriding factor that determines how good a game is. Salud, Josh Stover

A lot of people mentioned Metal Gear Solid as being a prime example of a 2D game moving to 3D, and while it's technically correct, it's not quite the same thing as Castlevania. While there are actions that can only be done in 3D (sniping), the basic gameplay and pespective are still the same. That's how the Gameboy Color Metal Gear Solid ended up playing just as well (and since there was less dialogue, some would argue that it's better.) Zelda fits into the same category - while the battling was enhanced immensely, the actual game doesn't feel all that different from its older counterparts. Games that rely on reflexes - especially side-scrollers - are the ones that need drastic gameplay changes to work with 3D.

Can an older 2D series make the transition to 3D successfully... yes. Blaster Master just did with Blaster Master: Blasting Again for the PSX. And when I say "transition to 3D successfully" I don't meant just thrown into a 3D environment. I mean retain the feel and gameplay of the original. Blaster Master: Blasting Again feels like the original, only in 3D. All the game elements are there, plus a decent story, and it's still platform based jump and shoot action. Another good example would be Maximo for the PS2. It's basically Ghosts'n Goblins, with a few changes, and of course in 3D (and it's fun to play). Looking toward the future if Capcom were to utilize their Devil May Cry engine to resurrect Strider I'm sure it would be a hit. But the real question should be why leave 2D behind for 3D? No one can say 3D is better, just like no one can say 2D is better. Both have their own aspects that appeal to certain gamers. A full 3D shooter is too much like a simulation, not quite what the 2D sidescroll/top-down shooter community would look for. So it wouldn't make sense to take Gradius into the realm of 3D. Not to say 3D techniques shouldn't be used, as games like Silpheed: The Lost Planet have shown a combination of 2D and 3D can be very appealing, but consider what gameplay is needed and base the engine off that (3D for the sake of 3D is pointless). Consider the flipside, would Silent Hill work in 2D? Most likely not... it needs that movie-ish atmosphere achieved only through a 3D environment. Would you ever want to see Silent Hill done in 2D? Probably not... so why should games who's core gameplay is based in 2D be pushed unwillingly into 3D? Ultimately what ends up happening to such titles is a complete rewrite, and far different gameplay from what the series used to have. Which is where many 2D/3D debates spurr from. Capcom hit it on the nose when they did Maximo. They clearly stated is was not a sequel to Ghosts'n Goblins and although similar was a brand new game. Being that it's not part of the series it has no obligation to live up to that series' legacy. And fans of Ghosts'n Goblins have nothing to gripe about. But if they do like it, then well that's good too. Personally I would have loved to see RetroFX's homebrew remake of Ghosts'n Goblins come to light: http://www.segaweb.com/News/1299/47.html But alas it was canceled. Anyways, to get to my point, 2D games have the ability to make the transition to 3D, we've already seen that, but certainly 2D should not die off, nor is 3D the fix-all to video gaming. If a series worked good in 2D... keep it 2D! There are still a lot of gamers that like 2D, and in no way is 2D dated! Symphony of the Night proved that hands down (in an era mostly populated by 3D games). This doesn't mean that a 3D version shouldn't be attempted, but if it doesn't seem to be working out gameplay-wise... can it (i.e. Castlevania: Resurrection). There have been far too many bad 2D to 3D conversions where the developers attempted to cram 2D gameplay into a 3D world... and folks sometimes it just doesn't happen. In the end it should come down to which style, 2D or 3D (or maybe a mix of the two), best works to present a viable world for a particular style of gameplay. And if that gameplay strays too far from the rest of the series, maybe it's best to just make a whole new game. Especially in cases like Castlevania which are rooted in platform action. -Drakul

While I'd have to agree with Blaster Master: Blasting Again - it's plenty fun, though I'd venture to say that, overall, the graphics are better in the NES version - I really can't say I enjoyed Maximo. It's one of those games that, to be, seemed to have all of makings of a great game, yet I didn't really find it fun to play. In fact, while playing it, I envisioned that if the game had been 2D, I probably would've been enjoying it more, for reasons clear in the next letter.

I admit, when I first put in CV64 and started to try it out, I was pretty disappointed. Not nearly as much action, difficult new controls, NO MUSIC!!!!! on the first level (Great way to start an exciting game, eh?), and horrible play control (Making those ledge jumps was simply impossible and making them in the very first level was a good way to disgust anyone trying the game out). However, once I miraculously made it past the first level, I really got into it. The level explorations were really different and cool; the atmosphere, while not in the same vein of flat out action-excitement, was definitley eerie and involving. Plus the Dracula battle is pretty much the most truly scary I've seen in any CV game, because the battle took place all around you and really felt a lot like I was in the room with the monster. Once I played Legacy of Darkness, with its much improved play-control, I was totally sold. Now all that said, I admit that I am a lover of old school type play. If I can find a 2D action game with new modern graphics, sound, and story, I'm sold (a la Chronicles). If I was forced to choose the format for future CV titles, I'd have to say 2D--it just seems to go with the action-packed feel of the series better. It's simply often too hard to control your movements at all, let alone trying to fend off hordes of monsters at the same time, in a 3D game. Another thing, comparing SotN with CV64--Alucard's animation was awesome and fluid, making him a very cool and enjoyable character, and he was small enough that he looked fine without the extensive detail we'd see in a real person up-close. Now take Reinhart--still looks pretty cool, but let's face it, up close all the time, you get to notice how blocky and featurless he is. And man does he move slow. You really notice if he doesn't look and move exactly like a real person. Another thing about 2D games is that it's easier to get into the action because you can see enemies and obstacles in front of you, behind you, above and below you all at the same time, and can thus figure out how to survive all of it. With 3D you can only see what is in front of you; suddenly you are shot by something somewhere and you have to turn all the way around and try to figure out what it was, thus obscuring everything you were just looking at a second ago. Pretty limiting and frustratingly slow at times as you try to react. In 3D it's also way harder to simply attack the enemy you want and make complicated jumps, because half the time you can't see what's below you and there are so many enemies hording you that you have to just keep attacking and hope to eventually hit the one you want to. To put it simply, 2D games are more on the game, less on trying to see what you're doing. Maybe some day Konami will get good enough to perfectly blend the action with easy-controlling 3D, but until then, while CV64 definitely was cool and has some great points, I'll take 2D. Quinn Johnson

The final paragraph summarizes the biggest problem I had with 3D games. I just find games in 2D to be more fun to play. That's not to say that games in the third dimension can't be - I already mentioned Devil May Cry, and Zone of the Enders falls nicely into that category as well - but it's rare that the controls are intuitively designed.

Nobody can say that Symphony of the Night is a pure "Castlevania" game.  With its level-up system, not using a whip (or playing as a Belmont descendant for that matter), having a RPG-ish inventory screen, and non-linear game play, SotN departed greatly from what was traditional for a ''Castlevania'' game.  And yet, it was a trailblazer.  Its progeny, Circle of the Moon is considered to be one of the best games ever.  Plus, SotN is damn good in its own right. Let us take Castlevania for the Nintendo 64.  The shift to 3D was a big change; but it was a good change.  Much like SotN before it, CV64 (and Legacy of Darkness) introduces something new to the series.  Since it was the first to go 3D, naturally there would be some difficulty converting traditional 2D game play into 3 dimensions.  But just as CotM built off of SotN's new features and improved them, subsequent Castlevania games that are 3D will learn from mistakes made with CV64 and improve on the positive aspects. CV64 was a good game.  I was not fond of the controls, I did not like the graphics, and the sound was minimal; however, it was fun.  In fact, it is one of my favorite games of all time.  I was sucked into the world, I was inside Castlevania: I could explore it as if I were really there.  I finally had the freedom to explore.  CV64 was a first step.  With each new step, more improvements can be made.  Combine the non-linear aspects of Simon's Quest, SotN, and CotM, tweak game play and level designs using more powerful game systems (for more complex environments), and you will have a damn good 3D "Castlevania." And just because new 3D "Castlevania" games may be made in 3D does not mean that all "Castlevania" games will be made 3D.  Konami could create two "Castlevania" franchises: classic and 3D.  Should this be impractical, the levels of subsequent 3D games could be designed so that they play just like a 2D game.  There are several more possibilities that exist and I look forward to seeing what is developed in the coming years. And on a side-note, CV64 has an awesome story.  Meeting Rosa in the garden, saving her from suicide, battling her, and the climax atop the clock tower made for a compelling story that fleshed out what would have been another Dracula-is-risen-again story.  If only the time-travel elements were better explained, it would have had the best "Castlevania" story.  Plus, the introduction with Malus on the violin was awesome.  --  Anon Y Mouse

Capcom's running - what is it now? - four seperate Mega Man continuities, one of which is 3D and two are regular side-scrollers, so the possibility of having 3D and 2D Castlevanias isn't too far out of grasp. Heck, you could even pull an action and an exploration sideseries as well. Konami needs to learn to whore Castlevania out.

I've been a fan of the Castlevania series my whole life. I have owned every single Casltevania game released in America, except for Vampire Killer, and the three original gameboy Castlevania games. When I bought Castlevania for the 64 at Toys R Us, I expected another great game in the sereies. I got home, placed it into my N64, and was in for a real dissapointment. When I would play it, I wouldn't get the same feeling that I would from games like Casltevania 1,3 and 4. The game sucked. A year later, Legacy of Darkness came out. i thought it might be better. I was wrong. This was even worse. Usually in most Castlevania games the castle has some simmilar things, like the stairs to Dracula's Lair. The 64 versions did, but there were about five other rooms you had to go through befor you could reach the Count. The main point of saying this is that a series like Castlevania cannot survive on 3-D. It can't even be made without changing everything. The gameplay itself is completely different, and it's impossible to hit stuff with Reinhardt's whip without using the targeting. Saying Castlevania can survive on 3-D is like saying the Resident Evil series can survive on Atari. It just can't happen.        Remember the Contra series? Great series from Konami, almost as good as Castlevania. Came out on playtation in 3-D at the begining of the Playstation's life. It was so bad, there hasn't been another Contar game ever since. Do you really want another series, like Castlevania go to waste like Contra. I sure don't. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see Castlevania games still being made up untill the day I die, and hopefully they will still be in 2-D.

Alas, poor Contra...why did you have to die so sadly?

While Legacy of War sucks without question, was I the only one who enjoyed The Contra Adventure? Lame title and first stage aside, I found the game to be nice, stupid fun. It's definitely worth the $10 or so you can buy it for.

Great to see this line of articles! Great stuff so far. I'd like to speak on all three of the subjects so far. First, the matter of respawn points. I think they're absolutely neccessary, or the game will just be rediculously easy. Instead of Strider 2, you should have used the "closer-to-home" example of Castlevania 2. I can't enjoy that game, because it's too easy. However, respawn points must be fair! The Ghosts and Goblins series is a good example, that was used. A lot of the levels are lengthy and you must pass through several very difficult sections before you get a save point (and usually have to fight a red devil for that too:). There should be a save point after every difficult section. You could argue either way about putting a save point before difficult bosses... It seems like a good idea, but Castlevania has done okay without so far. The point of difficulty: I personally greatly enjoy a really hard game, but only if its fun! I love Mega Man and Castlevania (the first ones), but can't stand Mega Man 2 or Castlevania 2 because they're so easy. Difficulty settings are a godsend and should be a part of every game. But back to the point of fun... To me the worst part of Castlevania Chronicles was the part with the floating raft. Not only was it frustrating, but it wasn't fun. I'd like to point out that I also hate the stage of Super Ghouls and Ghosts with the raft, and the auto-scrolling Super Mario Bros. 3 levels. The first Castlevania and Mega Man were great because, despite the great difficulty, all the enemies and obstacles could be overcome by learning their patterns through persistance. (I found this to be a lacking point in Castlevania 4... There was virtually no randomness or variation; it was too easy to learn the enemy's patterns.) Granted that there should be easy games; the Kirby games are a blast but very easy. Castlevania games have always been very hard, and the fans expect it, so it should continue that way. 3-D vs 2-D: Hoo-boy, one of my favorite pet peeves. To me this is like saying, why make cel animated movies/shows when you can use CGI? Rediculous! Though I feel that Castlevania should always be 2-d (though there's not much point in knocking an occassional 3-d one), I understand that there is a place for 3-d. I love Grand Theft Auto 3, which would blow in 2-d. One of the major traps I've seen 3-d games fall into is that they're just ackward to play. I Super Mario 64, it's a pain to line yourself up under a ? box, or to land just right on an enemy. I prefer games that are really simple to play, but night impossible to master. My best examples of this are Sonic the Hedgehog and River City Ransom. You could do a large number of tricks and maneuvers with almost no effort. The challenge was in applying these tricks. In 3-d games, I've found that simply lining yourself up for a shot is a pain. What's the point in changing a series from 2-d to 3-d, anyway? To me 3-d platformers are a different genre. You might as well say that Castlevania should only be a shooter, RPG or fighting game. Anyway, my (looks over message) much more than 2 cents. -Bart McKee

Oh...right. Castlevania 2. That slipped my mind. Well, I was never a fan of Occam's Razor anyway.

As for your movie comparison - look back at the cartoon in the past year. The flop of FF: The Spirits Within nonwithstanding, both the CGI-animated Monsters Inc and Shrek smashed the living tar out of poor Atlantis - a traditional 2D movie. Most of the critics panned the movie, saying that CGI would, in fact, be the way of the future. I hope this isn't true, because I really prefer cel-style animation myself.

I will admit there is a certain kick in seeing your favorite flat 2D character emerge in a 3D world - I was excited as hell the first time I played FF7, where the battles would look more interesting than silly little characters shaking their fists at blinking monsters.

For the record, Grand Theft Auto 1 and 2 were technically in 2D - and they weren't half as good as GTA3.

~I think Castlevania can work in 3-D. Certain levels of Legacy of Darkness prove this, like the improved tower of execution or the new tower of sorcery. However it seems that there was some imbalance in enemy placement and trap placement. In 2-D Castlevanias both were seamed together rather flawlessly and often purposefully frustrating, while in 3-D it's either one or the other that you see and rarely ever both. ~One of the other problem I see in 3-D games is with camera angles. 2-D games always have the camera following the player, 3-D games have the camera hovering around the player... And at times giving disadvantage to the player because you are not always able to see what you want to see. Why to this day this hasn't been fixed I am not sure. It seem to me if the camera always followed the player, and then given the option to look around, I think many people would feel differently about 3-D games. ~I hear complaints all the time about Zelda Ocarina of Time (n64) when to me, it played almost exactly like A Link to the Past (snes) but in 3-D. But then again I found A Link to the Past great at first, then it got quite monotonous towards the end, (ie. find a dungeon, get the item, beat the boss, find the next dugeon). But Ocarina's introduction of a targeting system was an important addition as it was a solution of sorts to a game's inability (?) to provide helpful camera angles. ~Well my point is that the n64 Castlevanias were bad examples of a 3-D engine. Graphically deficient, poor execution of gameplay, and showcases of a rushed product. I'll bet that Resurrection would have had more playability (and definately more story) had they given it a chance. And the 2˝-D aspect of it may have worked. I think the 2˝-D developers refer to was sort of a Crash Bandicoot effect where the path is linear but polygons are used to create a feeling of depth. I have no worries that IGNs Castlevania will be no less than a masterpiece, 2-D 2˝-D 3-D or otherwise. -D

I think you have the most optimistic viewpoint of any of the letters received, but points taken.

That was all fun and good, but how about a grudge match now? It's been flu season here at Ramapo College, and as a result of my sickness, most of my friends won't come anywhere near me. Using this newfound freetime, I hooked my SNES and decided to rectifity my biggest gaming sin - I'd never, ever completed Super Metroid. (waits for awed gasps to hush) I since beat it earlier this night, but how's this for a topic: compare Metroid to Castlevania. It's pretty obvious that Symphony of the Night stole several pages out of Super Metroid - if they did it anymore, you would've had to escape from the castle after killing Dracula. Which series strikes you as a better game? Has better music? Character? Replay value? Just pick the two apart and lemme know who wins out. Now I'm getting back to sleep.

Kurt