In the first part of a new GameCareerGuide series, Good Games, Bad Design, Eric-Jon Rossel Tairne takes a critical look at Konami's NES classic Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse.
Of this new article series, writes Tairne:
"A successful game environment does four things:
1. it teaches about the player's relationship with the environment;
2. in doing so, it directs and focuses the player's behavior;
3. generally it obscures this manipulation from the player; and so
4. through the invoked behavior it evokes in the player a certain mood or mindset.
If the player doesn't know why he picks the routes and actions he does, yet in picking those routes and actions he comes to adopt the intended perspective, you have successfully communicated. Think of all the moments in Half-Life 2 where you think you're being clever under pressure, and you're actually choosing the only possible path -- or how The Legend of Zelda keeps you on-track by making the woods scary and dangerous, so that you will tend to leave them until you're stronger and more experienced."
In specific for this installment, Tairne takes the level design of the third Castlevania game to task:
"Unlike either of its predecessors, there is little reward for being observant and exploring, and the game lacks those little reward beats and that clear direction that builds momentum. The architecture is full of empty spaces, meaningless flourishes, and padding. Creatures are tossed around with little thought as to placement. The branching paths and multiple characters are new, but compared to the focused, driving architecture of the original Castlevania, there is little psychology to the design. So those ideas rather go to waste, as the game never clearly builds on them."
However, there's good to be found, too. The entire analysis, which goes into much greater depth and comes complete with maps that illustrate the principles being discussed, is live now on Gamasutra's education-focused sister site, GameCareerGuide.
Disagree 100%. Especially regarding the first stage of the game, which is meant to be a throwback of sorts. The first block is meant to be a throwback to CV1, and the rest of the stage is "supposed" to take place in the town of Jova (from CVII; up the stairs through the church, over the rooftops of the town, and back down again). [Note: The same town showed up again in Rhondo of Blood/Dracula X Chronicles]. In short: The entire first stage was a throwback to previous level designs.
Likewise, all Castlevania titles tend to go with flat, linear first stages so the player can "pace" into the game. The style of the first stage is quickly contrasted by the style of the clock tower/marshes, etc. The clock tower stage especially rewards the player for exploring a bit (You can leave the tower with Trevor/Grant both with triple shot knives, and theres a hidden 1-up Grant can find on the way back down the tower)
It should also be noted that the first Castlevania was basically a NES port of the FDS game of Vampire Killer, which essentially was CV1 with free-roming within each stage (CVII and later Castlevania titles were clearly influenced by this overall design).
In short: I disagree with the authors conclusions 100%; the first stage was a throwback of sorts, and later stages, as soon as stage II (the Clock Tower) begin to reward the curious adventuer.
I started reading and found it surprisingly critical. I suggest that he does better research on the games before writing about future ones.
A quick look at YouTube showed me there's an item atop the "staircase to nowhere" on the game's first screen. Also I read in a walkthough on GameFAQs that you can't reach a candle later in the stage because you need to use the other playable character Grant (I guess you need a code though).
I remember the original Castlevania being kinda random with the placement of blocks. I thought of this as a way of showing the dilapidation that you see in the environment. And sometimes those blocks save your life when you would otherwise die. I haven't played any Castlevania 3 but it seems like a good first stage, I don't see what all the grief is about.
Castlevania 2 is probably a better choice for criticism in my opinion. I felt the game was designed well, other than the dungeon designs. I thought the dungeons were pretty lackluster when I rushed through it.
Let's say you're right about the stage being a throwback. The similarity is vague if it's there, but regardless. Are you suggesting that its references to other games make it a good design, or are you saying that they excuse poor consideration for design?
Likewise are you saying that the first stage does its job of setting the scene, or that it doesn't matter if the game makes an effort to grab and instruct the player right from the start?
Finally, I have to ask: what is the point of tradition if it prevents the game from communicating?
Mr. Whiteman:
So there's another candle on the landing. Okay. Explain how that justifies the architecture.
It's possible that Grant may be accessible from the start with a code. Yet within the normal course of play, this isn't the case. Explain how this unusual scenario justifies the architecture.
Up until the fifth level, nearly every block in the original NES Castlevania is placed with precision. If something seems random, there's usually a reason for it. Although it may not be immediately obvious, that is also mostly true is Simon's Quest. That's not the case in the third game.
The point of the article is critical analysis. Considering that you've never played the game, the dig about my quality of research is interesting. Play the level, beat by beat. Think about how it introduces concepts to the player. Think about its use of space. The level is mostly padding, and (especially compared to the intricacy of the earlier games) there isn't much thought as to demonstration or momentum or theme or dynamics.
Likewise, all Castlevania titles tend to go with flat, linear first stages so the player can "pace" into the game. The style of the first stage is quickly contrasted by the style of the clock tower/marshes, etc. The clock tower stage especially rewards the player for exploring a bit (You can leave the tower with Trevor/Grant both with triple shot knives, and theres a hidden 1-up Grant can find on the way back down the tower)
It should also be noted that the first Castlevania was basically a NES port of the FDS game of Vampire Killer, which essentially was CV1 with free-roming within each stage (CVII and later Castlevania titles were clearly influenced by this overall design).
In short: I disagree with the authors conclusions 100%; the first stage was a throwback of sorts, and later stages, as soon as stage II (the Clock Tower) begin to reward the curious adventuer.
A quick look at YouTube showed me there's an item atop the "staircase to nowhere" on the game's first screen. Also I read in a walkthough on GameFAQs that you can't reach a candle later in the stage because you need to use the other playable character Grant (I guess you need a code though).
I remember the original Castlevania being kinda random with the placement of blocks. I thought of this as a way of showing the dilapidation that you see in the environment. And sometimes those blocks save your life when you would otherwise die. I haven't played any Castlevania 3 but it seems like a good first stage, I don't see what all the grief is about.
Castlevania 2 is probably a better choice for criticism in my opinion. I felt the game was designed well, other than the dungeon designs. I thought the dungeons were pretty lackluster when I rushed through it.
Let's say you're right about the stage being a throwback. The similarity is vague if it's there, but regardless. Are you suggesting that its references to other games make it a good design, or are you saying that they excuse poor consideration for design?
Likewise are you saying that the first stage does its job of setting the scene, or that it doesn't matter if the game makes an effort to grab and instruct the player right from the start?
Finally, I have to ask: what is the point of tradition if it prevents the game from communicating?
Mr. Whiteman:
So there's another candle on the landing. Okay. Explain how that justifies the architecture.
It's possible that Grant may be accessible from the start with a code. Yet within the normal course of play, this isn't the case. Explain how this unusual scenario justifies the architecture.
Up until the fifth level, nearly every block in the original NES Castlevania is placed with precision. If something seems random, there's usually a reason for it. Although it may not be immediately obvious, that is also mostly true is Simon's Quest. That's not the case in the third game.
The point of the article is critical analysis. Considering that you've never played the game, the dig about my quality of research is interesting. Play the level, beat by beat. Think about how it introduces concepts to the player. Think about its use of space. The level is mostly padding, and (especially compared to the intricacy of the earlier games) there isn't much thought as to demonstration or momentum or theme or dynamics.
It doesn't much improve afterward, either.