Nightmare Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Circle of the Moon is a mess with terribly unbalanced difficulty, uninspired graphics (and music for the most part), bad controls and a very flawed, if cool, magic system. Discuss Circle, I guess. Edited April 19, 2010 by Robin Mask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike-Mike Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yet another flaw is the soundtrack. It is mostly comprised of below average remixes of old Castlevania music, with a few original tracks here and there. Would it have killed you to make them all original? Apparently, it would have. But putting aside the bad remixes, the original tracks are actually pretty good! Bu-but "Awake" is one of the best songs in any Castlevania game ever! And that's saying a lot since Castlevania always has awesome stage 1 music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 I did praise the original music, though. I don't feel Awake is one of the best, but it certainly is a great track. Same for the other original tracks. It just seems like a lot of wasted potential to me when they could make the whole soundtrack original and great, but instead they filled it with horrible remixes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think you should give Circle of the Moon a bit of slack because it was one of the first GBA games. It was likely rushed at least a bit and the developers really couldn't have any idea of what would and wouldn't work on a GBA. I think this is probably the reason behind the bad controls you complain of, which I really didn't notice back in 2001 or 2002. The first generation of games on a console is rarely good, and I enjoyed it more than any of the other GBA launch titles that I saw, annoying magic card system or not. CotM also led to greater things. Aria of Sorrow is one of the best GBA games out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted December 3, 2009 Author Share Posted December 3, 2009 Yeah, I admit I was a bit too harsh on it at points. Circle had a good idea behind it, but it's so poorly executed that I just...yeah. Aria of Sorrow is an excellent game, definitely one of the best, though I'm not sure how it relates to Circle, because they were developed by different branches. But that doesn't really matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike-Mike Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think you should give Circle of the Moon a bit of slack because it was one of the first GBA games. It was likely rushed at least a bit and the developers really couldn't have any idea of what would and wouldn't work on a GBA. Super Castlevania IV was one of the first SNES games too and it's still hailed as one of the best Classicvanias. Actually most of the first SNES games are still seen as timeless classics so I wonder what went so right with the SNES what didn't with all the other consoles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think you should give Circle of the Moon a bit of slack because it was one of the first GBA games. It was likely rushed at least a bit and the developers really couldn't have any idea of what would and wouldn't work on a GBA. Super Castlevania IV was one of the first SNES games too and it's still hailed as one of the best Classicvanias. Actually most of the first SNES games are still seen as timeless classics so I wonder what went so right with the SNES what didn't with all the other consoles. Perhaps it had something to do with the smaller market back then. Meaning, you actually had to make a good game if you wanted money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike-Mike Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Keep forgetting that every 3rd household in the US had a NES and likewise many devs (mostly established Western ones) were producing shovelware to cash in on them. But even then the devs who made shovelware on the NES were actually making good games on the 16 bit consoles. I'd rather say that the devs finally understood all the new values brought in with the NES and could build up on it during the 16 bit era. Edited December 4, 2009 by Ike-Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) I think the reason that SNES games didn't exploit the new system to the fullest from the beginning is that they were breaking new ground in terms of hardware capabilities, at least among games with a wide audience. Some games fully exploited certain aspects of the hardware from the beginning, but they were considered to be exceptional. Most in the first generations were just like bigger NES games, and it took awhile to build up to games like Dragon Quest VI or Thracia 776. The primary emphasis was on gameplay from the beginning to the end of the console where with most consoles the biggest focus on gameplay comes toward the end of its lifetime, since toward the beginning developers who aren't yet familiar with the console need to put more effort into making the expected high quality visuals and putting in some of the technical gimmicks that buyers know are possible. The GBA was definitely one of these, with Nintendo saying from the beginning that the GBA was capable of anything an SNES could do and more, and by then people were very familiar with the best the SNES could do. The PlayStation would have probably had a similar development cycle to the SNES if it had been able to get more developers on board earlier, as the first popular console capable of decent 3D graphics and using CDs rather than cartridges. Edited December 5, 2009 by Hero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriemhild Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 I agreed to pretty much everything in the OP but I have to admit, I enjoyed playing Circle of the Moon a lot. With all of it's flaws, it was still a great Castlevania game imo. I still like Aria of Sorrow better though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Kommissar Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 CotM was easily the hardest GBA Castlevania, but it wasn't that bad. The (admittedly flawed) DSS system is a very useful way to level the playing field, particulary against tougher bosses like Ardramelech, Hugh, and Dracula himself. Most of the bosses aren't that bad, in my opinion - Death is downright pathetic, for example. I agree that the control's a bit sticky (mostly due to the need to double-tap to run), and that the common enemies tend to repeat, but this is tempered somewhat by the game's newness and generally huge size. CotM was a good game with good art direction that made you work to win, and I liked that. It's not perfect, but it manages to be enjoyable despite all of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magical CC Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Ya ya, you right, it've a bad control system and lack of monster variety, boss fight is really hard but at least, nothing like "Dracula's monsterchair" (OH, come on, the most stupid final boss fight I have ever endure) as the final boss and in my opinion, it's okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted December 17, 2009 Author Share Posted December 17, 2009 CotM was easily the hardest GBA Castlevania, but it wasn't that bad. The (admittedly flawed) DSS system is a very useful way to level the playing field, particulary against tougher bosses like Ardramelech, Hugh, and Dracula himself. Most of the bosses aren't that bad, in my opinion - Death is downright pathetic, for example. I agree that the control's a bit sticky (mostly due to the need to double-tap to run), and that the common enemies tend to repeat, but this is tempered somewhat by the game's newness and generally huge size. CotM was a good game with good art direction that made you work to win, and I liked that. It's not perfect, but it manages to be enjoyable despite all of that. Now there's a response that allows me to see why/how other people can enjoy it. Thank you. Yeah, the idea behind it is really nice. It just seemed to me that they tried to make up for the lack of creativity in level design by just making the difficulty insane and putting repetitive patterns. Much like a MMO, in fact. Trying to fill in a void of emptiness through inane means. Since difficulty in Castlevania is an issue here, I'd like to bring up Order of Ecclesia. I thought that game did difficulty really well, since it required both thinking and quick reflexes. The difference between these two games, I guess, is that Circle mostly relied on damage control rather than intelligent design for difficulty, while Ecclesia is the opposite. It's funny though, some KCEK members worked on Ecclesia too, which makes me kind of wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Smasher Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 I bought it used, played it through 3x, and sold it again. I didn't think it was "masochistic," though it was challenging. I liked the different cards and the different armors, which gave it a little RPG feel. (Rose Sword FTW!) However there wasn't much replay value. I guess I'm not a castlevania guy. It was one helluva lot better than harmony of dissonance--your guy moves super slow yet he has these blurry shadows following him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodykitty Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 This thread seems to heavily criticize CotM for why it falls short of the fluid gameplay SotN types, have, etc. Whatever OoE does to address challenge, more power to it but before that CotM had some things that the other Metroidvanias lacked. Also, SotN has Richter mode for challenge and Julius mode in AoS is actually balanced (one thing I hated about Dawn of Sorrow was that you leveled up in Julius Mode, potentially defeating the point of such a mode for me so I put it down there). With that aside, CotM being hard isn't just for the sake of CV fans that want difficulty, but it also makes sense from an RPG standpoint where leveling up and getting new equipment becomes a hugely integrated part of the game. Of course, somebody will just invalidate this statement and make an unbreakable statement by saying that having to level up is archaic and the work of Satan. CotM has some flaws in its execution, but it's by no means executed badly. I don't think the game was uncreative to the point that the game is no longer valid to be liked and considered good, just resource starved and designed to be an RPG over an SotN game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leapyear29 Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 i fell in love with this game since the first time i played it, just as happened with Aria of Sorrow and Harmony.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Or you could learn to anticipate that enemies' attacks. I had that down not long after Cerberus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Or you could learn to anticipate that enemies' attacks. I had that down not long after Cerberus. Like that makes the game any faster. Who the hell can't anticipate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Or you could learn to anticipate that enemies' attacks. I had that down not long after Cerberus. Like that makes the game any faster. Who the hell can't anticipate? I have a feeling we're misunderstanding eachother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Or you could learn to anticipate that enemies' attacks. I had that down not long after Cerberus. Like that makes the game any faster. Who the hell can't anticipate? I have a feeling we're misunderstanding eachother. Indeed, perhaps we should stop before things get out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Spoon Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 What I found about this game was that comparing to other castlevanias, this one is just boring. Bosses simply take forever to down (which makes it murder-inducing when and if you fail), everything moves slowly, Nathan's got the mobility of a drunk, and frankly the whip only works in the more fast paced games of the series. It was decent otherwise, it's just it felt far more tedious than the other games. Would have been great if it were faster. Nathan needs to lay off the booze. Or you could learn to anticipate that enemies' attacks. I had that down not long after Cerberus. Like that makes the game any faster. Who the hell can't anticipate? I have a feeling we're misunderstanding eachother. Indeed, perhaps we should stop before things get out of hand. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.