Yeah it was. It’s pretty good.
I wouldn't simply because it's not Castlevania. Still, it's good to know that there are modern games inspired by Castlevania.
I don't know the story behind its creation, but I wouldn't consider it the 1st Metroidvania. It's way too simple and it's more closer to what Nintendo did with Zelda II.
Which is also technically a metroidvania..
It does tick some metroidvania boxes, but isn't the game too simple and linear to be considered that?
Absolutely not. It's ground breaking for the 80s.
It's not as complex as what Metroidvanias are like. Maybe it could be considered a Proto-Metroidvania, but I honestly wouldn't go there simply because I don't know what the original developers wanted to do with that game. To me, it felt more like they wanted a less linear experience with some backtracking, but not as complex. The first true Metroidvania is way more complex.
Dude, you are going to have to provide some examples here, cause just cause the graphics aren't as good don't mean the game loop is any different from your average metroidvania.
Graphics have nothing to do with that. I strongly believe that IGA is the father of the Metroidvania Castlevania games. As I said, it's related to the game's structure. CII is simply not as complex. It has non-linear elements, but it's not as close to what Metroidvania is. From what I recall, the items don't alter the gameplay; they're more like keys to proceed. The exploration is more like moving from point A to B; the non-linear elements are there, but there's no depth.
You are completely wrong about the items, and the linear nature of the game. For example, collecting Dracula's rib gives you a shield. You buy 2 whip upgrades along the way, at least 1 knife upgrade, and you can traverse Translvania in any number of different ways. There are also level ups, and you have to talk to NPCs, which makes it more advanced then a lot of later Metroidvanias.
The complexity, interconnectivity, and the transformative nature of abilities in exploration seem lacking to me.
Again, I'd love to see what other people think, since this is what makes these threads fun. Let's go, Castlevania fans!
I don't know whether I need to play it once again, but I just can't consider it a Metroidvania enough. If you bribe me enough, I might consider it a Proto-Metroidvania. That's the closest you'll get if I'm in a good mood.
I didn't find anything relevant to make me change my opinion. Also, didn't it all start with Super Metroid, and then IGA tried to copy the formula with his own vision? Obviously, Metroidvania wasn't even a genre back then. From what I read, a Western journalist coined the term, and then it became popular in the West. In Japan, from what I know, they use something like "Exploration Action" (?). Either way, to be a Metroidvania, it has to be more complex than Zelda 2 and Castlevania 2. And I'm too lazy to focus on researching. Again, call it what you please. I'm here to share my opinion, and that doesn't mean it's something universal.
