LogFAQs > #976521873

TheWizardOfOrz posted...

Honest opinion from someone who didn't play it back then; You can definitely feel how old it is, and how later Castlevania games used a lot of the ideas it came up with, so it actually feels kind of clunky and "Oh, I've done that before" in places where it should feel more special I suspect.

That said I really need to give it another try because I highly suspect a game praised this much will reveal why it's still worth playing if I get past that. Unfortunately, I have a version on a PSP castlevania collection so the screen real estate is also super tiny and has borders.

I played it when it first came out or atleast in 2000 when it was getting traction.

Lets just say the Igavanias made afterwards are structured better. SOTN feels too random, less hand holdy for sure, but also barely any direction atall. Esoteric in its design in some areas a lil too much. It was nice as people in the schoolyard can tell kids how to get to certain stages but now its a lil annoying having things like time dictate when a part of a level opens up.

it was a bit too experimental. Its why the GBA and DS games are so well done, they cut the extra fluff SOTN had, and instead gave us a structured game with objectives and well planned out secrets.

You can tell IGA had full control of the games after SOTN, whereas SOTN he only really was the producer IIRC.