The hatred of Call of Duty comes in 3 Delicious Fruit Flavors

Gamers seem to have this love/hate relationship with the Call of Duty series.  I can remember when the first game came out for the PC in October of 2003.  This was during a time period where the console and PC first person shooters were two completely different animals.  While consoles had Halo, and it did very well, many FPS fans were extremely loyal to the PC platform for their gaming needs.  Medal of Honor was extremely popular.  However, the developers of Medal of Honor had left EA in order to create the developer Infinity Ward and join Activision.  Now a days, the FPS market on the consoles is quite popular, but during that time period, the PC market was much much larger.  There was immense support for Call of Duty.  Fast forward 9 years, and we see an intense hatred towards the franchise.  Why is this?  How can a beloved title less than a decade ago have such huge anti-fan base?  In my opinion, there are three reasons.

The Devil, according to some.

First, in 2003, Activision was a different company.  During that time, Electronic Arts as looked at the "Evil Empire."  These days, everyone has a rather negative outlook on Activision's business model (myself included), but there doesn't seem to be much talk about who original developed that business model (which is, EA).  Back then, Activision was much smaller of a developer, and did not have the massive resources that they have now.  They also had a much more positive reputation with the gaming community.  These days, Activision really can't do anything right in the eyes of the gaming community.  While I'm not a fan of their business model, I am also guilty of an intense dislike of the way they carry out their business.  However, they do still have the resources to release some top notch product.  With all due seriousness, though, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick could rescue an orphanage full of underprivileged and mentally ill children from a burning building, and the gaming media would look for a way to slam him for doing so.  

Responsible for the evolution of the console FPS.

Next, let's look at the law suit.  This might not be very well known, but two of the guys responsible for Medal of Honor are also responsible for the Call of Duty series.  Jason West and Vince Zampella are these two guys.  They were responsible for Call of Duty games 1, 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.  Now there are a lot of rumors and speculation out there as to what happened between these two gentlemen and Activision, but there was a long running series of statements made that would make one think that West and Zampella were not happy with Activision's management of the COD series.  After completion of COD2, Activision decided to use the "Madden Effect" (remember that post?) with the series.  However, knowing that West and Zampella's development house, Infinity Ward, could not produce  a Triple A title in one calender year, Activision decided to put another development house on the next game.  Treyarch took he reigns of the next game, and would go on to complete a COD game in the years where Infinity Ward could not (Call of Dutys 3, World at War, Black Ops and Black Ops 2).  I'm guessing West and Zampella were less than thrilled with this turn of events, as they moved to drop the Call of Duty name off of Modern Warfare 2.  Infinity Ward reps would openly insult Treyarch during the development of World at War (I remember one saying that they should stop talking about Modern Warfare in their interviews hyping up World at War, and instead talk about their own game and it's "zombies.)  After the release of Modern Warfare 2, Activision fired both West and Zampella, claiming they had both been scheming with Electronic Arts in order to leave their company.  West and Zampella then sued their former employer for unpaid bonuses and even wanted the "Modern Warfare" name.  Since that time,  the lawsuit grew and got more complicated, but was initially settled in May of 2012.  (I haven't heard the outcome though, if anyone knows, I'd be interested to know?)  Needless to say, this was even more negative press for Activision and Call of Duty, as the accusation that they refused to pay the creators of the franchise was pretty bad.  (It should be noted that since that time, West, Zampella and several former Infinity Ward employees have formed Respawn Entertainment, and signed on to produce games for, big surprise, Electronic Arts!  They have yet to announce anything, but with a new console generation starting, I doubt that will be the case for too much longer..)

Admit it, you love this picture.

The 3rd wonderful fruit flavor is really the one that is responsible for most of the diversity with this series.  Money.  I always say follow the money.  As I discussed in my DLC post a bit ago, you are not longer getting the "full" gaming experience you used to get for your full retail price of $59.99.  Instead, companies are now attempting to maximize their profits by planning up to a year of content that they will continually release either Playstation Network or X-Box Live.  In the case of a COD game, if you buy the "best" deal possible, you're looking at paying nearly double for the entire gaming experience.  I think the problem with COD is that not only has it fully absorbed the "Madden Effect," but now so has the DLC!  Combined with the fact that the COD series hasn't done much evolving, means that there's a lot of room for some high powered competition.  EA has gained some serious ground in this area with their Battlefield franchise.  

Moxxi was 10 bucks, vs 15 per COD map pack.

Furthermore, with the DLC bit, other companies are also copying COD here too.  However, if you look at a first person shooter like Borderlands, their DLC packs are actually full game add-ons, adding to both the first and multiplayer modes (because they are one in the same) rather than just adding multiplayer maps (which is still a very diverse market, half of the gaming audience still doesn't care much for multiplayer).  To further drive the knife deeper, Borderlands DLC ran 33% cheaper than the COD maps ($10 vs. $15).  Of course the big difference with that is also that Borderlands developer, Gearbox, is far more popular of a developer in the eyes of die hard gamers.

All that being said, though, the truth is that no matter how many people bitch and moan about Activision and Call of Duty, it is still the top selling game every year.  No matter how many people complain about how much they had COD, the fact is that people who really care about multiplayer will all end up picking this up in order to play with their friends.  Gamers might be pissy about it, but they will cough up the money for the game and the DLC.  They might talk about how much better Battlefield or whatever game is, but until gamers start speaking with their wallets instead of their mouths, nothing will change. 

Rockstar does it right, like it or not

One of the most successful developers out there is also the one that is the most controversial.  Every time they release a game, they always seem to push the envelope of what the "M" (Mature) Rating is, yet still always produce a title that wows the gaming audience in some way.  

I personally remember back to the original Playstation releases of Grand Theft Auto I & II.  The whole selling point, in North America, for these games revolved around the fact that Europe had banned them from being sold.  The weren't that great, honestly, and were more focused about the shock of being able to walk up and steal a car rather than engaging the audience in a deep gaming experience.  That all changed on the Playstation 2 though.

Grand Theft Auto III was the very definition of a "sleeper."  It was the third game in a series that had been considered mediocre, at best.  The first two didn't set the world on fire with their sales, and there was no reason to believe that this game would do any different.  In fact, the only people who thought the game would actually do well, happened to be Rockstar themselves.  The rest, as they say, was history.  Every facet of the game was improved.  The overlooking perspective was scrapped in favor of a 3D over the shoulder style game.  Celebrities were brought in to voice the characters.  The gameplay was improved.  Just every part of the game was so polished, that (in hindsight) it is amazing that anyone overlooked the title. 

GTA3 was such a massive success that it allowed Rockstar to really make whatever they wanted.  Not only would they continue with the GTA series, but they would also introduce top selling franchises like Max Payne and Red Dead, and turn them into huge financial successes as well.  Why is it that Rockstar seems to always strike gold with their games?  How can they get away with only releasing one game a year?  How can they be so successful when the mainstream media bashes them consistently?

Well quite simply put it comes down to one part polish and one part timing.  First, here's what I mean by polish.  They don't release a game they think isn't ready.  Sure, they have released crap in the past (State of Emergency comes to mind), but for the most part, Rockstar does have a standard they set for their titles.  While some developers would be rushed by the publisher to have the title ready, Rockstar is willing to shift around their release calender rather than released an unfinished game.  (Take note of that EA and Activision, because you should be doing it too).  Rockstar delayed L.A Noire an entire year due to the game not being ready, and it was to great benefit to the title.

Now the timing piece, and this is far more important than you might be thinking.  Rockstar always releases their big titles around the same time every year; the months of April and May.  Most publishers want their stuff out in October and November due to Christmas sales.  Game companies make over 50% of their profits in the months of November and December.  If you have something you want to make a big splash in sales, your best bet is to release it in the holiday time frame.  (This is also why most consoles come out in November)  The only drawback to this is the fact that everyone does this.  October and November are always so chocked full of Triple A product, that people on a budget have to make choices as to what they want to play.   Rockstar handles it differently.  They release during a time period when there's very little coming out.  So when you go to the store when you're bored in the summer, chances are you'll see lots of marketing materials and such surrounding the Rockstar title of that chosen year.  

Rockstar has become a brand that is quite recognizable a well.  They spend a lot of money on very slick television ads, and once gamers see that R, they know they are going to get a well made game.  Chances are, this summer, you've seen quite a bit on Max Payne 3, right?  Doesn't hurt that the game is pretty well made and fun, right?  They have a way of making their titles "timeless" in a way, which also helps them out with the pre-owned sales thing.  Grand Theft Auto IV has been out for years now.  However, it's so timeless of a game that Rockstar still has the game in print.  Many games, due to the pre-owned market, don't last that long, but this one does.  Because even when GTAV comes out, GTAIV will still be it's own unique experience.

Overall, I wish we'd see more companies handle their business the same way Rockstar does.  I'm not even the a big fan of GTA or anything they do,  but I respect the hell out of the way they run their business, and no matter what happens, Max Payne 3 will be one of the top selling games of the year.  

The Dark Knight Rises- NOT Spoiler Free

 There will be spoilers below, read at your own risk.

This is a gaming blog, but in the summer finding news to write about can be challenging.  However, since this weekend has been highly anticipated for another form of media, motion pictures.  I will not discuss my feelings and views on what has happened in Aurora, Colorado for a lot of reasons.  I will say that my heart and condolences go out to all that were affected by those tragic events.  Let me also say, once again, that my comic book knowledge is very limited, especially in my childhood.  My knowledge of all things Batman were due to TV, movies and video games. 

Now onto the fun stuff.  Batman gone though some interesting changes in my life time.  Early in my life, I was exposed to the tail end of what I like to call the "Adam West Era."  By the time I was born, the Batman TV show staring West had been off the air for 10 years, but his influence on the character carried on through re-syndication and the Hannah Barbara cartoons that resulted in guest spots on Scooby Doo, and the Super Friends.  However, in 1988, director Tim Burton released a darker version of Batman universe.  Not only did Batman receive a dark make-over, but so did his arch nemesis, The Joker.  The result of this movie spawned 3 sequels, and what I consider to be the best animated show of my lifetime, The Animated Series.  After the first sequel, Batman Returns, Tim Burton was booted off of the series due to how dark the series had gotten.  His replacement for the next two movies, Joel Schumacher, managed to produce one decent movie, Batman Forever, and then the death of the entire franchise, Batman & Robin. 

However, in 2005, Christopher Nolan decided to reboot the series, and start over from square one.  (I heard he never planned on making this into a trilogy, and intended his first film to lead into the 1988 Batman movie.)  Batman Begins came out and blew away all expectations set before it.  The sequel, The Dark Knight, was easily one of the most anticipated films of my life time.  While Nolan tapped one of the more obscure villains from  Batman's line up of baddies, Ra's Al Ghul, in his first film; the second one put the spotlight on the most well known comic book bad guy out there, The Joker.  The Dark Knight not only showed that a movie based off a comic book hero could be a work of art, but raised the bar to which all other comic book movies have been compared to since.  So needless to say, there were a few people looking forward to the last in the Christopher Nolan Batman Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises.  Can it be as good as The Dark Knight?

In a word, no.  Honestly, though, after how good the last movie was, saying that any movie isn't as good as it is really not an insult.  That being said, it's still an epic, action packed, kick ass flick.  It is also dramatically different from the first two movies.  Batman Begins was a movie about Bruce Wayne's journey to becoming Batman.  The Dark Knight put Batman as a secondary character, putting all of the emphasis on the Joker.  The Dark Knight Rises shows a masterful, multilayered, destructive plan that is actually carried out farther than any comic book movie has done before, then pulls a serious plot twist at the end (which I will get to).  

First let's look at Catwoman.  Everyone who wanted to complain about Anne Hathaway being cast, please actually see the movie before you start throwing stones.  Her portrayal of Catwoman was far different from Batman Returns' Michelle Pfeiffer.  While Pfeiffer took the character into a more dominatrix style role (being a strong woman who focuses on being sexy), Hathaway was much more feminine in the role.  She's never referred to as Catwoman in the entire movie, nor does she use a whip.  Instead, Hathaway is a very confident jewel thief who uses her feminine side to camouflage herself from suspicion.  Pfeiffer's version wanted confrontation, almost to prove her superiority to her male counterparts.  Hathaway only fights when she has to, and much prefers the escape to the confrontation.  I find this to be much more believable than the Pfeiffer version, and fits this universe far better.  Bitch all you want to about her goggle ears or whatnot, the truth is that she did a fine job with the role.  I didn't care for her "romance" with Batman, just simply because it seemed very out of place for her character.

Now we come to Bane.  I'm sort of torn on Bane.  He's not a classic Batman villain.  Plus, every version I've seen has him as a severely pissed off Mexican wrestler.  He never struck me as a very intriguing character.  In fact, when I saw Bane was going to be the focus of the 3rd film, I remember saying to several people that I didn't think he could carry the movie as being the "big bad" on his own.  (I remember saying "Bane is a plus one.")  To the credit of Tom Hardy, though, he managed to make Bane into a very strong villain.  He was intelligent and always in control of each situation put before him.  I love the idea of someone receiving the same training as Batman, yet very much his physical superior.  It's quite obvious that Bane's superiority over Batman was never in dispute.  Even during the fight at the end, Bane is bigger and stronger than Batman, and only loses the battle due to his mask.  Ah, yes, the mask.  Yes, Bane is hard to understand due to the mask.  Some of the scenes, he speaks quite clearly, while others will require multiple viewings in order to figure out what he's talking about.  That aside, I do like this side to Bane I've seen.  Plus Tom Hardy is jacked.  I mean seriously, he's built like a brick shithouse.  His working over Batman at the end of the flick with those body shots were bone crunching.  It should be noted that while I've seen tons of super hero movies, and there's always that saving the world at the last possible second, Bane's plan is far more drawn out and devastating.  He rules over the anarchy of Gotham City for 5 months before being challenged at the end.  He pretty much...wins.  The 5 months was only there to torture Bruce Wayne, just so he could watch his city being torn apart by the people he fought so hard to save.  If you go into DKR without knowing much about the Batman universe, Bane is quite believable as the big bad.

The big bad.  Yes, Bane is not the big bad.  I must say, I correctly predicted the twist at the end.  When I saw that Bane was tapped, and I made the "plus one" comment, my mind immediately went to Talia al Ghul. (Meaning that I never consider Bane to be a really good villain, he's a plus one) Personally, every medium I've ever seen Talia in, I've loved her.  The Animated series Talia was excellent, as we her portrayal in Rockstead's Batman Arkham City.  In this movie, they tease Marion Cotillard's character, Miranda Tate, to be the daughter of Ra's al Ghul so much, that even someone as unsavy as I am with comics wasn't surprised.  Miranda shows up on Bruce Wayne's doorstep for no real reason, and ends up having sex with him with no real build up or reason for it.  Then afterwards, she askes Bruce to fly away on a jet with her, foreshadowing that she knew something was coming.  One thing I did love about it, though, was that every scene she was in with the good guys, finding out something that Bane shouldn't know, when Bane would show up in the next scene to break up the plan, the movie made it look like Bane was actually brilliant instead of him being tipped off.  (As I told my brother today after seeing it, "If Lucius Fox was baking cookies with Miranda there, the next scene Bane would show up and before anyone could say anything, Bane would say, "Lucius, dude, I hook a brotha up with a cookie."  Anyway, Miranda throws off her false identity at the end, and I personally feel like if you KNOW about Talia al Ghul, this is an awesome reveal...but if you're not a fan, like my mother, the full impact of the reveal would be wasted. 


I am disappointed with the lack of a real romantic story here.  Any Batman fan worth their salt will tell you that Bruce Wayne has two re-occurring female weaknesses, Catwoman and Talia al Ghul.  Putting both characters in the movie could have played up to an interesting love triangle between the three, but in the end, the romance seemed to be rather forced and lacked any sort of compassion.  Honestly, that's far more of a nit pick than anything, just because Nolan didn't write the movie I wanted him to write.  I just figured that he would have put a little more meaning behind Bruce Wayne's relationship with Talia al Ghul than a one night stand.  I did, though, like the underlying themes

Lastly, I'll touch on the ending.  It was very emotional.  This movie took everything Bruce Wayne had; his company, his money, even his best friend and butler.  It seemed only natural that Wayne would also lose his life.  However, the jerk at the end with Wayne surviving the explosion, and his recruiting Blake (who's real name happens to be Robin) is an interesting direction to take.  It was a real fitting end to the trilogy.  It ties up everything nicely, and does leave room for Batman (and Robin) to continue their crusade against evil in a new world of Batman.  I personally think the franchise will be rebooted though, if for no other reason, to cast a new Joker.  By the way, I think that Dr. Crane's part in the film would have gone to the Joker if Heath Ledger was still alive.

So now you're gonna ask yourself, is this better than the Avengers?  Guess what, I'm going to cop out on the answer.  These two films are apples and oranges.  Christopher Nolan's Batman is a gritty, realistic look at a super hero that doesn't have anything supernatural or alien to make him into something greater.  He already is greater, and all three of these films take Batman as close to being realistic as possible, without completely jumping the shark.  In short, this could be the greatest trilogy of comic book heroes ever made.  The Avengers, on the other hand, is very much a comic book movie.  It has aliens, magic, technology, unbelievable acts of destruction, and does not even try to make it feel gritty or realistic.  Instead it just felt like a movie to show you how awesome it would be to be an Avenger.  Good.  That's what it needed to do.  Honestly, Avengers will probably keep the title of making the most cash, but saying that it's better than Batman really isn't fair to either title.  They should be judged on the types of films they are.

Why Kingdom Hearts works

This is going to be an interesting debate, because it's a lot like the old "which came first, the chicken, or the egg?"  What makes Kingdom Hearts so popular?  Since we are under 2 weeks from the next Kingdom Hearts Title, Dream Drop Distance on the Nintendo 3DS, I'd thought I'd pontificate about this topic.

 

 

Sans Enix

Kinda looks like the characters he designs

Let's start with the history, in 2002, Squaresoft (before Enix), released a crossover game that really was thinking outside of the box.  Tetsuya Nomura, the character designer for Final Fantasy game VII,  VIII, X, XII and XIII, was put in charge of a crossover game featuring characters from the Final Fantasy universe and characters, oddly enough, from the Disney universe.  I'll be honest.  When I first heart about this, my first words were "Holy shit, that sounds like a damn train wreck."  However, this was during a time where most of Squaresoft's releases were still pretty good, and and old friend of mine was a translator for the company at the time, so I always purchased their games in order to support her. I didn't expect the game to be a huge success though.

Admit it, Final Fantasy + Disney...sounded like a train wreck.

No, he doesn't say "Mmmmm, doughnuts."

Crossover games were pretty popular, mostly due to Capcom's vs. tournament fighters (Marvel vs. Capcom 2, for instance), and Final Fantasy was actually a lot bigger then than it is now (one could argue that Kingdom Hearts has eclipsed FF in popularity these days..).  However, every crossover that the fans really wanted would be what if characters from separate game ever met and the like.  The Final Fantasy universe was pretty closed as far as crossovers had gone, and when FFIX actually did have some from the original Final Fantasy (such as Garland), most of the old school fans loved that idea.  (Should also be noted that since Kingdom Hearts, Square has released several FF Crossover titles, Dissidia for instance)  However, I don't think anyone, new or old school, sat down and wondered what would happen if Could Strife met Mickey Mouse.  To Disney's credit, however, they managed to provide a very star studded list of voice actors and actresses to reprise voice roles they had done in the past.  For instance, Hercules' main bad, Hades, was indeed voiced by James Woods.  Aladdin's Genie was not voiced by Robin Williams, but instead the role was filled bu the Genie's back-up (who Disney gets to do the voice if Williams turns down the part), Homer Simpson himself, Dan Castellaneta (who incidentally, also voiced Darkwing Duck villain Megavolt..just thought I'd throw that in there for  you trivia geeks out there).  Squaresoft answered in kind with a pretty star studded voice cast for the characters on their side of the fence as well; including pop singer Mandy Moore as Aerith, Angel's David Boreanaz as Leon (or Squall), Billy Zane as Ansem, and Oscar Award winning actor, Haley Joel Osment as the main character Sora.  Overall, both companies were taking this game production very seriously.  I personally thought it would be a match made in Hell.  Boy was I ever wrong.

Sora, in Wonderland

Never thought I'd ever say "Yes, I leveled up Goofy!"

However, this might not be for reasons you might suspect.  If you remove the source material from both companies, Kingdom Hearts is really a clunky platformer, with a mildly above average battle system.  (It wouldn't be until Kingdom Hearts II that these would be seriously upgraded)  Sora's worst enemy wasn't the Heartless, not any of the various villains he would meet upon his quest.  No..his worst enemy was, by far, the camera.  It made making some of the required jumps in the game a serious pain in the ass.  The battle system was refined, and good, but not really great.  Overall, the mechanics of the game were just somewhat average.  The 3D platformer was still relatively young at that time, and while some games got it right, like Super Mario 64, others just couldn't get the perspective correct.  To this game's credit, they at least tried something different, and the game wasn't broken to the point where it couldn't be enjoyed.  It really is a fantastic game.  Just not because of refined game mechanics.

Squall..er..Leon..er..whatever.

No, the real "meat and potatoes" to this game is the source material.  And while many of you are going to chastise me for saying this, it wasn't because of Squaresoft's source material contributions.  Sure, many of us (including myself) were drawn into the game because of the Final Fantasy characters, but that's not what kept us playing.  In fact, with a few noted exceptions, such as Sephiroth, most of your Final Fantasy character meetings are done fairly early in the game.  No, you won't be fighting Captain Hook, and then see Gilgamesh pull up behind him for back up.  Not at all.  The game's strength and major driving force behind it is the contributions from Disney.  It is the Disney stuff that kept me playing.  I had to see what world was next, and how it all tied in together.  It also tied two separate audiences together, and exposed more fans to the beauty of a Squaresoft title.

Kingdom Hearts II introduced Tron to a whole new audience, and a few years later, a new movie...imagine that.

Merlin, the OG of Wizarding

Let me explain my point here.  As I was playing through the game's introduction (which is rather long, by the way), I ended up in Traverse Town.  I was moving around the town, I ended up meeting with someone I knew very well from my childhood (because I watched the shit out of this movie) The Sword in the Stone's wizard, Merlin.  When Merlin pulled out his bag and all of his furniture danced out of it to find it's place in his room, I was hooked to see more.  That hit me right in my the breadbasket of my childhood.  This exposed me to Disney movies I hadn't really much experience with, as I hadn't seen an animated Disney film since Lion King at the time.  I had never seen Aladdin, Hercules, or the Little Mermaid.  I'd like top think this probably worked in reverse, as maybe younger fans who had seen those movies were exposed to Pinocchio and Peter Pan.  What remains the fact here, though, is that we all grew up with Disney, like it or not.  My parents had me watching Disney stuff from a young age, and chances are, so did yours.  While my love of Final Fantasy got me to purchase the game, my Disney childhood kept my playing through it.  Honestly, I level most of my complaints at Squaresoft's lack of contributions in the game more than anything.  It always annoys me that Tetsuya Nomura seems to live in this time warp where he has a hard time admitting there are other Final Fantasy characters out there besides the ones he personally designed.  In fact, it wasn't untul Kingdom Hearts II until two of Yoshitaka Amano's characters made the game, Setzer from Final Fantasy VI and Vivi from Final Fantasy IX.  It was later revealed that the Final Fantasy characters were considered to be "guests" in these worlds, and there would never be a Final Fantasy world where Sora and his team would fight to liberate.

Disney to Michael Keaton's Square Enix

Now I'm sure a lot of the Square faithful will probably be pissed that I said that, and there is some merit to that argument.  I don't really like the fact that when you look at the package that Disney's name appears before Square's.  Square did all of the work on the game, without a doubt.  However, when it comes down to which brand is the bigger brand, it's certainly Disney.  It is quite similar to 1988's Batman movie.  Michael Keaton played the title role, and traditionally, the actor playing the title role had his name first on the marquee (also on the back of the VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray, movie posters, etc.).  However, in Batman's case, the actor playing the role of the villain, The Joker, was a far bigger name that Michael Keaton.  So when the movie posters were out and such, Jack Nicholson's name appeared first.  This was a pretty big deal in 1988.  However, if you look at the Disney/Square partnership here, it's very much like that.  In 1988, Jack Nicholson (and still is) a much bigger actor.  It wasn't slighting Michael Keaton, who was popular at that time as well, he just wasn't Jack.  In fact, had they gone with their original casting choice, Robin Williams, Keaton's name could have very well had been first.  Square is the Michael Keaton of this relationship.  They are popular, just not Disney popular.  

Of course, Kingdom Hearts ended up becoming a major hit.  I would go as far to say that it could rival it's namesake, Final Fantasy, in popularity.  I would say the big factor there would be their sticking to the formula that made the original games popular.  Only once did they try to do something completely different with the series, on the Game Boy Advance.  They took the 3D plaforming adventure game and turned into a turn based card battle game.  Since that time, they've pretty much stuck with what got them to the dance.

Castlevania

I love Castlevania.  I grew up an NES kid, and my parents didn't have a lot of money to buy me games.  They did their best, but I still had a rather small library of titles as compared to some of my friends.  I can remember at school we would often trade NES games with each other.  This is how I remember getting access to games like Metal Storm, Metroid, and Kid Niki: Radical Ninja (no I'm not making that title up).  We also were regulars at the video store.  Yes, back before the release of DVDs, video stores were all the rage.  My parents would rent movies, and allow my brother and I each to rent one game.  This was my first exposure to a little game called Castlevania. 

Konami released Castlevania in 1987 here in the States, and to me it was the first "horror" game I had ever played.  (Let's be honest, it was rather difficult to instill horror in a kid with an NES game.  First game I legitimately jumped  was the Playstation's Resident Evil, where the first demon dogs jump through the window...and if you say you didn't jump, you're a damn liar.)  It stared a virtual cornucopia of horror movie icons, all led by "The Count" (Yes, believe it or not, in the original instructions he was "The Count"..not Dracula).  You were Simon Belmont, latest in a long line of vampire hunters that were around to slay the beast when he got a little froggy.  The game was a lot of fun, and was really a typical early NES game.   Meaning it didn't have a lot of levels, but it got insanely hard at towards the end (Grim Reaper hall is one of the hardest things I've ever done).  What wasn't like most NES games at that time though, was the amazingly wonderful music.  While themes like the Super Mario Brothers will always be iconic and recognizable, Castlevania's music was the first time I remember thinking, "Damn, I wish I had that on a cassette tape."  (Those were like..what we used before there were such things as iPods and CDs...god I feel old.)  Funny story, I went to a local theater October of last year to see Paranormal Activity 3 (which I shouldn't have seen) and in the lobby of the theater they were playing monster music in honor of Halloween.  Right after the always classic "Monster Mash" was the original 8-bit Castlevania theme.  Epic.

The timeline is somewhat of a mystery to me.  Even though I can easily google and see the timelines, I don't really remember there being such a timeline.  Several games claimed to be the "first" in the timeline, but it seems that every 5 years or so, Konami releases another "beginning."  Important note here too, while there are supporting characters to the franchise, and even mains, as the time I write this, there has only been one female Belmont, Sonia.  She was reserved for the original Game Boy game Castlevania Legends.  She was supposed to be in the Dreamcast's Castlevania, but it never came out.  

Now there are a slew of Castlevania titles out there, and while I would love to sit down and write a nice long lengthy review for each one (which if this blog gets big, I probably will do at some point), but for the sake of my fingers and your eyes...(come on that was funny), I'm going to group them for your reading pleasure.  Castlevania, while all having to do with the same source material, mostly fall along the lines of three different genres (except the shitty Wii tournament fighter, and that multiplayer one from X-Box Live and PSN a few years ago....).  These genres are the "classic platformer,"  "Metroidvania," and "Belmont of War."  I'll describe each one and then tell you the best game of that type and the worst as well.  I will do my best to not leave out any titles, but given how these games were released from Japan, I might miss one (hoping not to).

Classic Platformer
Titles in this genre: Castlevania, Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse, Super Castlevania IV, Castlevania: Rondo of Blood/Castlevania X, Castlevania the Adventure, Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge, Castlevania Legends, Castlevania: Bloodlines

This is the classic style of game that would go on to define the NES as a console, the platformer.  It focused on moving from point A to point B, defeating enemies and had a much tighter focus on perfectly time and placed jumps more so than the combat.  These games were insanely difficult (especially Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse).  The main weapon of the main character in each of these games was the whip, and could gain sub weapons by whipping candles to gain them (axe all the way baby).  This genre was started by Super Mario Brothers, but with Castlevania the difficulty was turned way up, and there was a greater focus on combat, specially with the boss monsters.  It is important to note here than while they are "different titles" I consider Rondo of Blood and Dracula X the same game, because they really are.  Rondo is a far better (because it's the original) port of the game, but Dracula X was the same thing, and all we had to play of that part of the timeline until recently. While the games are all different, and the difficulty varies, if you have played one of these titles, you should be able, in theory, to play them all.  Keep in mind as well that the only two games in this genre not on a Nintendo platform were Rondo of Blood (Turbographix 16) and Bloodlines (Sega Genesis).  Rondo of Blood is also the first game of the entire franchise to have cut scenes and a focus on the story.

Best game in this genre:  Super Castlevania IV - Tough choice here, because Rondo of Blood is amazing as well, but I'm giving it to IV.  Simon's whip control in this game has yet to be duplicated by any other title in the franchise.  It is, at it's core, just a basic retelling of the original Castlevania, but it's superior to the original in every way, which is really hard to do.

Worst game in this genre:  Castlevania The Adventure- This came out towards the start of the original Game Boy's life span, and to be fair, being the worst on this list is really not a bad thing.  It was just a smaller version of the Castlevania, and the NES did it far better..and more colorful.







Metroidvania
Titles in this genre:  Castlevania II: Simon's Quest, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Castlevania: Circle of the Moon, Castlevania:  Harmony of Dissonance, Castlevania:  Aria of Sorrow, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin, Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia

This is probably the genre most of you are most familiar with.  Now before any of you pitch a fit, yes, Simon's Quest is the original Metroidvania game, not Symphony of the Night.  Go back and play it.  It has far more in common with this genre than the platforming genre.  While Simon's Quest might have been first, Symphony of the Night did it better, and the release of that game on the Sony Playstation was so amazing, that it would dominate the way we would play Castlevania until the time that I write this.  Sure, they branched off into trying other things, but they always went back to the Metroidvania style.  As the name implies, this genre plays a lot more like Metroid.  It focuses more on exploration and upgrading rather than timed jumps in the classic titles.  Most of these had an experience system that would further advance the power of your character as you defeated monsters.  These games were also far more story based than the platform style, some with fully voice acted cut scenes.  While most Castlevania's are supposed to be in a "timeline" the Game Boy Advance's Aria of Sorrow, and the DS's Dawn of Sorrow, are the only two games in this genre which you play as the same protagonist.  These two games also have appearances by Alucard, the son of Dracula, and main character of Symphony of the Night, and a support character in Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse.  

Best game in this genre: Castlevania: Symphony of the Night - There is nothing I can say about this game that is bad.  It's just how I feel, seriously.  It's a massive game, with tons of exploration, tons of spells to unlock, tons of weapons, armor and items (not to mention the combinations of them, for different effects) and familiars to fight along side you.  Alucard could turn into a wolf, bat, or myst.  The graphics were gorgeous for their time, and some of the boss encounters were truly epic.  The soundtrack is also one of the finest video game soundtracks ever produced, with a combination of gothic sounding music played metal.  It's amazing.  This is easily one of my top 10 games on the original Playstation, and that's a pretty exclusive list, given it's library.  It should be noted that this game also received a Sega Saturn release, but only in Japan.  This version was superior to the Playstation version due to the inclusion of not just Richter Belmont (who was unlockable via code in the PSX game), but also the female protagonist Maria Renard.  This remains the only way to play as her through this game.  She was very handy, complete with a triple jump.  Given the Saturn's lack of popularity here in North America, this version is rare and increasingly expensive. 

Worst game in this genre:  Castlevania II: Simon's Quest- I have a rule about games, probably because I'm old school (which means I had no internet or anything to help me when I was a kid). The rule is that if I can't beat the initial offering the game gives me without help from an outside source, like a book, then it's got problems.  It can still be good, but it's a flawed game.  Castlevania II was the first game I ever played that I had to dip into my boxes of Nintendo Power magazine in order to find out what to do.  The most maddening thing to me was the fact that most villagers flat out freaking lied to you.  I'm cool with people not wanting to talk about Dracula, or the curse, or the monsters outside each village, but just say, "I don't know anything," rather than shoot me a bold faced lie.  This made the magazine mandatory reading in order to get anywhere in the game.  This also holds the distinction of being the easiest game in the series.  Dracula, after being one of the hardest accomplishments in gaming history in the first title, could be beaten by a chimp wearing a diaper on his head in this game.


Belmont of War
Tiles in this genre:  Castlevania (N64), Castlevania: Legacy of Darkness, Castlevania: Lament of Innocent, Castlevania: Curse of Darkness, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow

Yes, I'm obviously saying these games are similar to God of War.  Even the earlier Nintendo 64 titles are like God of War.  Honestly, these games are Konami's attempts to take the series into the 3rd dimension.  During the Playstation/Nintendo 64 lifespan, the "en vogue" thing to do was take your game and turn them into 3D games.  Most classic titles did this from Super Mario Brothers  to Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy VII, and even the Blue Bomber himself, Mega Man went to Mega Man Legends.  Some of these attempts were successful, such as Mega Man Legends, and some were not.  Castlevania started out on the not side.  As the Nintendo 64 (Castlevania and Legacy of Darkness) versions were, well, easily the worst of the entire series.  They are teeth grindingly painful, and if you do have the opportunity to play them, I high suggest you don't.  Once the we got to the time to the PS2/X-Box, however, Konami managed to put out a few games that were better.  While some did enjoy Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness, most hardcore fans of the franchise stuck with the Nintendo DS's Metroidvania titles instead.  The odd man out here, is the newest of the franchise Lords of Shadow, which I'll get into ...um...now?

Best game in this genre: Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - The odd man out, right?  Well, I say that because it really is a God of War clone, and while I group all of the above mentioned games in the God of War style game, Lords of Shadow is about as blatant as one can get.  Think of Jim Carrey in Batman Forever, at the part for this box.  He's wearing the same suit as Val Kilmer, same glasses, and even the same mole.  Same thing, really.  However, in this case, that's not a bad thing.  The game plays really well.  Furthermore, the entire game is narrated by Patrick Stewart.  How cool is it to have Jean-Luc Picard walking you through every stage of the game, eh?  And how cool would it be if one of the guys who belongs on the Mount Rushmore of video game developers were to work on it?  This game was over seen by Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima.  The only thing that I'm not too clear on is how you can have a Castlevania game where the last boss isn't...Dracula.  I seem to remember hearing that this game is a "reboot" of the Castlevania timeline, as well, which would make sense.  Overall, it's a really well done game.  My jury is still out on it being officially Castlevania.


Worst game in this genre: Castlevania (N64)- This game is the equivalent of waterboarding.  I don't think I can paint a better picture than that, eh?  First and foremost, there's no music.  Castlevania has no music.  Don't think about that, or blood will shoot out of your nose.  Next, the controls suck.  It's hard to explain,  but let's just say that when you make a platformer, 3D or otherwise, controls are the most important part.  I can forgive bad controls on a crappy game like Onechanbara, because while it sucks, and the controls suck, they don't detract from running around and killing the shit out of zombies.  The game sucks, but it has a certain charm where fun can actually be had for a (small mount of) time.  With this game, however, the controls just make the game painful to play.  Originally, this game was supposed to come out along side the Nintendo 64's DD64, which was a disc drive that was going to be used for a plethora of cool stuff, supposedly.  Nintendo never released it, so we'll never know.  I do remember that Castlevania would use the DD64 in order to have a fully functional world that would evolve if you were playing or not.   The game would take into account what time it was when you were playing, and things of that nature.  Of course, what we got was...well a game that was probably only 1/3rd finished.  If I remember correctly, this game was originally supposed to have 6 playable characters, and delivered 2 (with a 3rd in Legacy of Darkness).  Overall, I suggest avoiding this game, and double avoid it if you consider yourself a fan of the franchise.