Pretty simple topic on this one - Metroid vs. the exploratory Castlevania games. Surprisingly, not many wrote in, so all the letters I got are here.
|
You've really opened up a can of worms with this one, my good man. One of Castlevania's biggest draws for me is the mystique and atmosphere of the vampire hunter world. Heroes and villains alike are dark and powerful. (Don't tell me that a guy who fights with a chain isn't just a little creepy.) Combat is gritty, and architectural style is everywhere. Metroid is no slouch in this area either, but I don't think it quite measures up to the sheer magnitude of CV's built-in mythology. Though Metroid is based on things we've seen before, like the Aliens movies and other sci-fi epics, its world is essentially a whole, new creation. I think this makes it a bit hard to compete with concepts like vampires and werewolves that have had hundreds of years to expand themselves and gain notoriety. Vampires are just so COOL it's hard not to make a cool world based on them. On the other hand, I think this gives Metroid an edge in another area. Back in the "good ol' classic gaming days" of the mid-80s, I played Castlevania and I played Metroid. You'd think a game based on classic horror would be the scarier of the two, but in my experience I always found Metroid to be far more nerve-wracking. Fast-forward to the SNES era and we have Castlevania IV and Super Metroid to contend with. Castlevania IV was fun to play and brilliant to look at and listen to, but it wasn't scary. Super Metroid on the other hand was often surprisingly creepy. My feeling is that in having a mythos all its own, Metroid games have an edge in making you feel like you don't know what will happen next. It may be a bitch to kill Death, amid his tornado of whirling blades, but at least you know he's not going to be hiding behind the next jumping platform, patiently waiting to latch onto your cranium and suck out your brains. So maybe I'll go so far as to say that the concept of a Castlevania is cooler, but the playing of a Metroid game is more memorable. Hopefully the upcoming Metroid games will be similarly memorable. Super Metroid is usually touted for its great gameplay, expansive worlds, variety of enemies... these are all great reasons to love it, but I think often the atmosphere gets overlooked. In my mind, Metroid games are far more frightening than 90% of the survival horror stuff we see. I think it's the music, it's the sound effects, the isolation, the fear of what might be through the next airlock. Or maybe it's just an old gaming geezer remembering a favorite cartridge of his just a little too fondly... Christopher Lundgren
|
I'd have to partially agree with you there - just listening to Kraid's theme from the original Metroid still makes me crap my pants, and I'm something in the area of a full-grown man. That game was TOUGH, especially in the beginning stages. And nothing is scarier to a ten year old than weird jellyfish monsters coming at you from all directions, sucking your fragile life dry.
On the other hand, Super Metroid is a bit different - while the atmosphere is still there, the biggest factor of survival horror games is the pervading sense of danger, of being killed. Super Metroid just isn't a very hard game - the only area that gave me any problems was that big dragon thingie in Maridia, and that was probably just because I hadn't been looking for enough Energy Tanks beforehand.
|
Thank you for starting the Metroid vs. SotN debate!
As a player and lover of both series, I too noticed the similarities in the
games:
Both are non-linear 2D games where the main character seeks new weapons and
abilities in order to defeat the enemy. There are other similarities but no point in naming them all. The biggest difference is in replayability. After you beat Super Metroid, that is it. Sure you can try to find 100% of the items but in the end it doesn't really matter, the ending is basically the same no matter what. This guarantees limited replay, except for diehard fans. SotN on the other hand has 4 different endings, all depending on your actions, not necessarily how fast you complete the game. This is the one key element that distinguishes these games. Okay, so you get to Richter and kick his ass, the castle crumbles, yadda yadda, game is done. But wait, there is a rumor of another castle? Now I want to try to find out how to get the second castle (assuming you don't use the internet to cheat). I now spend hours trying different things, exploring more closely, paying attention to the items for hints, granting me more genuine new play on the game. Still, Super Metroid sets on the shelf gathering dust. Even after you do find the second castle and beat it, you still have a genuine desire to get 200% and even after that you want to level up all your familiars and see what cool tricks you can do with item combinations. Sure, Super Metroid and SotN are similar but it is clear which game is better. Jake the Snake
|
True - still, I'd wager that the Metroid games have more stuff (missiles, bombs, etc.) hidden, so there's a good amount of incentive to scour the entire map on future replays. First time I played through, I think my items obtained count was about 61%. Still, Symphony has such a large number of weapons, that you're bound to find something new and interesting on repeat plays.
|
This is a difficult debate since it's not easy to hold back bias. Before
a comparison can be made, though, we have to acknowledge what we are
comparing. The Metroid series has always been action/adventure.
Castlevania, on the other hand, has mostly been action/platform. Therefore,
the only Castlevanias that can apply to this comparison are Sympony of the
Night, Circle of the Moon, and to a lesser extent, Simon's Quest. That's if
you want to do a game to game comparison. To compare two games of different
genres is an empty topic. Try figuring out the better series when the
competitors are Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. What can be compared
though between the entire Castlevania series and Metroid series are the
things that the genre barrier doesn't apply to. Music and characters are two
examples given at the end of the 2D vs. 3D debate. In my opinion, Castlevania beats Metroid out in music hands down. Metroid has some cool music but for the most part can't compete with what Castlevania has. Characters is a little bit more difficult since you're comparing an armor clad bounty hunter to a family of vampire hunters, and a giant brain in a bottle to the dark prince. I happen to like all the Metroid characters, Samus, Mother Brain, Riddley, Kraid, and the Metroids. Not to mention all the happy looking monsters of the universe. So Metroid has a 100% character rating from me. Castlevania has great characters...for the most part. Even though I don't give Castlevania the 100% rating because of the few characters like Henry and Soliyu it simply has far more characters than Metroid meaning there's bound to be some you don't like or just plain don't care about. Comparing the action/adventure castlevanias to Metroid puts me in a bind because I can play Super Metroid more often because it doesn't force you to go out of your way to do things like the Castlevanias but the Castlevanias offer more to do so if I have the free time, I would play them. The good outweighs the bad on either side moreso than if I was to compare the action/platformer Megamans to the action/platformer Castlevanias. As a whole, I would have to say that Megaman wins simply because I've never played a Megaman that I disliked nearly as much as Castlevania Legends. It stands in my book as the worst Castlevania ever. So for this Metroid vs. Castlevania debate, I can't come up with a strait forward one or the other. All I can say is that I love them both and hope that this new Metroid Miyamoto is making doesn't wreck the series that the great, late Gunpei Yokoi worked so hard on. Sorry that I didn't contribute much to this discussion but I really am at a stalemate here. Tony T. Tiger
|
Fair enough.
|
I'm sure, simply placing this question on a CV site will more than
slightly slant the poles, I personally have to stand by Metroid. The
first time playing through Metroid 3 was an experience I've never had
recreated... an absolute sense of awe. That is the sole reason that I
would put it in front of Symphony (and eventually Circle) Now understand
that Symphony is my # 4 game of all time... my top 5 is probably Metroid,
Final Fantasy 6 (3 in the US), CV3, Symphony, and Megaman 3. On the topic of graphics and sounds... Symphony came out in what, 97? Metroid came out in 93. So, at least 4 years passed and graphics and sounds made amazing leaps and bounds. The only time SOTN matches Metroid is the very very beginning in the entrance hall... the lights are out the only things seen are flashes of lightning and clamming doors in the background. Creepiness at it's finest. Obviously, the graphics in Symphony were, and are, amazing. Hands down, Alucard is one of the most fluidly animated character ever created. As a soundtrack, Symphony is my favorite of all time (slightly edging out the brilliant compositions of Final Fantasy 6). But, for the game... Metroid 3 has an absolute eeriness that even the Resident Evils fail to capture most times. The music is 75% of this. There are a couple of tracks in symphony that have a similar effect, but overall, for effect purposes, Metroid has it. The difference between Symphony and Metroid is more of a wow, that's cool that I experienced with every boss in symphony, to Holy $#!+, I have to fight THAT, that you deal with in Metroid. This has a lot to do with the character. Spend enough time in Symphony leveling up and the game becomes effortless. Not so with Metroid, though it is on the relative easy side. By the time you fight Dracula, you're a fully badassed vampire with familiars and magic. In Metroid, you've got a slightly better gun and a larger life span thanks to energy tanks, most of which you had to find. In Metroid, there were moments when you stepped into a room with too much heat and your health starts dropping, you pulse rate escalates and you move as fast as humanly possible to get out of that room. This is non exsistant in symphony. Also, in Metroid, EVERY item is used. Nothing in excess as opposed to Symphony's leagues of useless stuff. Character wise it's a tossup. Alucard, the good son of the ultimate evil, or a female bounty hunter exploring new worlds. Alucard may be cooler, but in terms of guts, I'd have to go with Ms. Samus Aran. She's mortal. All it takes is her battlesuit being worn down for her death. Alucard, technically, is on his own stomping grounds. Granted, he defeats even death himself, but that's nothing that MANY humans (the Belmonts) haven't done before. But, in all credit, I don't think any Belmont could kill that Egyptian thing that gaurds the poison mist... And one thing about Metroid that I turly love and like even above Symphony is the character animation. Granted, Alucard has more frames of animation, a SWEET cape, and a cool shadow effect, but Samus is breathing. Even when she's standing still. Also, when she faces right, her gun arm is towards the screen. When facing left the other are is towards us. It may be a minor touch, but it is merely a testament to how well her character is designed. About the only flaw I find in Metroid in terms of design is one minor gripe in the play control. I wish the wall jumps were easier to preform as there is one pit that it's impossilbe to get out of without. In symphony, while I like the concept of leveling up, it's almost a necessity to get through the later portions of the game, and especially if the familiars are to be worth anything. In Metroid, no time wasting is necessary. Metroid also offers multiple endings based on speed and efficiancy. This was somewhat mirrored in Symphony, but ONLY if you didn't finish the game entirely. Also, the mere addition of "Soul Steal" made Symphony WAY too esy for those who could pull it off with ease (I rearely ever used it sheerly on principle). I know I've looked pretty harshly at Symphony here, but please understand that, it is the sole reason I bought a PS2 when I did (I never got a PS1). I LOVE the game, but in terms of atmosphere and sheer excitement, I gotta give it to Metroid, and am VERY eagerly awaiting both Prime(GCN) and 4(GBA).
R. Brian Wilson Now, give me a graphic upgrade "All-Stars" type game of CV 1,2,3,4, and X, and I can die a happy man.
|
The "Symphony's leagues of useless stuff" are both a plus and a minus, though it's more detrimental to Circle of the Moon. The advantages were already mentioned, but the disadvantages are how the items are obtained - pure luck. Granted, if you've read any strategy guides, you'll know where to find them, but even then, you have to hunt down a particular enemies and spend quite a bit of time running in and out of the room until the item you want it dropped. Has this struck anyone else as a bit...dumb? Metroid forces actual exploration in finding stuff instead of simply stumbling across it. This wasn't a big deal in Symphony of the Night, but it rather hindered Circle of the Moon, because only a handful of the cards could be found easily. Some areas of the game can be brutally difficult if you don't have the right cards.
|
Ahh, I love both these games. It's a tough decision, but I'd go with SotN
(don't kill me if you disagree). Both the games are actually pretty different
when you look at them. SM had a much simpler approach to its equipment, while
I still haven't gotten every last item in SotN (I'm close though... pretty
pathetic). The settings are quite different, and are presented differently.
SotN had that handrawn feel that I love, and continues the CV tradition of
damn good music. SM's music was much more atmospheric than melodic (and a
good atmosphere at that). It also presented to us a pirate base, which is
much different than a castle. So it seems like an apples and oranges argument
on that. As far as characters, there's a huge difference. You hear Alucard speak in a number of scenes, so you gain a sense of what he's like and who he is. While all we know about Samus is what she takes off in the end. But in these sort of games, the story doesn't matter as much as what you get in game play and replay, and both give you that in spades. I could play both of these games endlessly. This is my favorite kind of game, unquestionably. I know both games by heart and still love to see everything unravel. I love to try to get everything in SotN, and challenge myself (killing Drac with the Tyrfing, oh yeah), and SM seems to me to be more of an edge-of-your-seat type. The first time that giant metroid latched on to me, It was 2 am, I was tired, and it was dark, so it scared the hell out of me.as far as game play, it doesn't have any healing items, and you can't fly, so some jumps must be made carefully. So all in all, I love them both. This has been somewhat disjointed, but it's what I think. Now if you'll excuse me, Mother Brain's being a bitch again... -Moonen
|
As cool as Samus is (as illustrated in previous letters) - she never speaks, and thus doesn't have much a personality. Her only background comes from instruction manuals and the trophy screen in SSB Melee. Even though the story is a very minor part of SotN, it does help flesh out Alucard as quite an interesting character. Note: This column was written before Metroid Fusion for the GBA came out, which had plenty of plot and gave Samus some character.)
|
To say there are no similarities between Castlevania: SOTN and Super
Metroid would simply be foolish. But claiming that SOTN is a rip-off of
Metroid is like saying that Half-life is a rip-off of Wolfenstein
3D. There are symmetries in the basic structures of the games, but the
second builds on the first enough to warrant its existence without
criticizing those similarities. Metroid is the first installment in a
rarely utilized genre of games. This style of game simply has not yet been
recognized as its own genre, most likely because there have been so few
games making use of its style. First person shooters were commonly called
"Doom Clones" until the market was flooded with enough of them to warrant
the designation of an entirely new genre. The point here is that SOTN is
similar to Metroid, but only because it is the same style of game, and we
don't criticize other games of ripping off earlier games of their genre, so
why do this to SOTN? Many people have claimed that the layout itself of Castlevania in Symphony of the Night is a rip-off of planet Zebes in Super Metroid. I myself cannot understand this claim. Comparing the two maps side by side, I cannot see any remarkable similarities. This raises another question in my mind: why is SOTN necessarily a copycat of Metroid rather than a simple internalization of Castlevania 2? The non-linear, RPG-style, item collection-oriented nature of SOTN is a resurrection of CV2, transplanted into the interior of Dracula's castle. Ignoring the setting of each game, SOTN is quite similar to CV2, which came long before Super Metroid but after the NES's Metroid. Symphony incorporates enough differences, and even improvements, over the Metroid series to redeem itself as its own unique game. The items in SOTN are drastically more numerous and varied than those of Metroid. In the latter, there were a handful of weapons and abilities to find, a few more energy capsules, and a load of missile containers to be found. In Symphony however there were countless heart-/life- max-ups, weapons, food items, and miscellaneous items, not to mention relics and other such things, to seek out. (The item count of COTM is much more similar to that of Metroid, with the main character searching the castle for new abilities--why does nobody compare those two?) Also, SOTN contained many more RPG-ish elements than did Metroid, with the use of spells and magic points, strength and defense ratings, etc. Finally, the inclusion of an entirely new game at the "completion" of the first castle was such a brilliant touch that it set SOTN far away from Super Metroid. Super Metroid is an indescribably fantastic game and ranks in my top ten of all time, but Symphony has enough differences, and dare I say improvements, to clear it of any accusations of copying Metroid. As far as comparing the two, they are both excellent games. I have beaten SOTN countless times, and yet I still have not grown sick of traipsing through Castlevania seeking out all the drop items and stretching my experience points as high as I can. Super Metroid is such an enchantingly polished game that I cannot resist trying to get my friends as hooked on it as I am delighted to be. Both games have such incredible and standard-defying soundtracks that I see no point in comparing the two. I have trouble thinking of any flaws in Super Metroid (though I never could get the hang of that @&%$^ Space Jump), however SOTN is far too easy and has atrocious voice-acting (in the American version, at least). Still, Symphony gets my vote as the better of the two. As outstanding as Super Metroid is, it lacks the sheer addictive value of SOTN. And while Maridia and Norfair (areas in Super Metroid) are beautiful in their own way, they cannot top the beauty of Castlevania's chapel or Olrox's Quarters. I'll take Maria over Samus any day, though it is a tough call. In the end, there are enough additions to Symphony of the Night from its Metroid cousin to make it an excellent game in its own right. ------Richard Meves
|
You guys are making this column too easy. I have nothing to write.
|
My first game experience was with super mario bros. From the first time I
picked up that beautiful nintendo controller and played till my eyes bled ive
loved video games. The next big game I played was super metroid. Instant
bliss. I beat that game at least a 100 times and each and every time was a
great experience for me. After my 101th time through it, I wanted to see what
else the series had to offer. I seaked out all the metroid games. nes,
gameboy and snes versions were mine within a month, and alot of nights came
when the sun came up and I was seen in my room seeking out metroids and other
nastys. The next big game series that had me hooked was Castlevania. Now, im only 15 and I know a good game when I see it. Castlevania offered something new to me: hardcore action. We all know what it was like to pop in our first castlevania game. The sound of that whip still resonates through my mind*shudder*. One day my brother asks me which is better, Metroid or Castlevania? I stood there in shock, realizing that I had never asked my self the same exact question. The answer is, that both are in the same category as great games in their own right. Metroid offered exploration in an action packed manor. Castlevania offered action, plain and simple, tough as nails, adamantium steel hard action. I love castlevania, the story had a way of just pulling me in everytime. I dont care if it was the same plot just with different names. Just when I though it couldnt get any better with castlevania, Symphony of the Night came out. Three words describe my feelings towards this game- Oh My God. I stood up for two days and two nights straight playing this game without pause.(Yeah I know wat yall r thinking, i dont have a life, but it was a weekend and i had just moved so wat was i gonna do) Anyways as I played I realized that it felt alot like super metroid, and than i thought if Super Metroid did it right, than castlevania did the right thing. To me, three games stick out as greatest for each. for metroid it was the only games in the series. For Castlevania, it was super castlevania 4, circle of the moon and symphony of the night. circle of the night reawakend my passion for castlevania. So to finish it off, no game in both series is any better than the other. Anyone whos played ANY of these games from both know this to be true.
|
Yup!
It's a bit hard to set two video games in a battle to the finish when both of them are so well revered, but I tried anyway. Oh well.
I'm in a rush, so let's make this next one a broad one - music in Castlevania. Read Wallace Esch's Castlevania music essay for a bit of background. There's quite a variety of styles in the Castlevania games, especially in Symphony of the Night, which ranges from classical to hard rock to choral to jazz fusion to techno, amongst many others. Which style strikes you the best?
To make things more interesting - if you could pick someone to do the music for a Castlevania game, who would you pick? Bring back Michiru Yamane (Symphony of the Night) or Sota Fujimora (Chronicles), or perhaps another video game composer like Yoko Shimomura? Or (and I know I'm setting myself up for this one) what band would you like to do music for a Castlevania game?
And God help me, if anyone says Limp Bizkit, I'll shoot you in the face.
(Also keep in mind my e-mail is a bit wonky, so if your message bounces back, send it later. Lousy computer services at my school...jerks.)
Kurt, purveyor of Ultimate Power