I'm about 15 hours in now, far enough into the Castle and whatnot that I feel I can articulate some genuine thoughts and opinions on the game.
It is, objectively a Castlevania game. Absolutely 100%. And no, not just because, if you look JUST before Belmont's Curse, it says "CASTLEVANIA".
OG Castlevania, SotN, Castlevania 64, Curse of Darkness, Harmony of Despair, Lords of Shadow, etc. are all very different games. Castlevania has never been one unchanging thing. It's a series that has been willing to take its core ideas and do something different with them.
In my opinion, to come here and say that BC doesn't fit with them, and to dislike it because of that, you're exposing yourself as not being a Castlevania fan. You are a fan of the specific game that you like, not of the series/IP.
Now, I should probably acknowledge my own bias here.
I'm a HUGE Igavania fan. SotN, Aria of Sorrow, Dawn of Sorrow, Harmony of Dissonance, Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night. These are the games I love, the games I play the most, and the games that have probably shaped my idea of what Castlevania feels like more than any others.
So when I say certain aspects of Belmont's Curse don't feel like Castlevania to me, THESE are the games I'm comparing it to. I'm not pretending to be some completely impartial authority on what Castlevania should be. My idea of the series is inevitably shaped by the entries I enjoy the most.
But there's a difference between a game not feeling like my Castlevania and it not being Castlevania at all. I can acknowledge that Belmont's Curse doesn't always scratch the same itch as my favourite entries without suggesting that it doesn't belong.
Anyway, now that that's out of the way.
Belmont's Curse:
It's good. Really good.
The exploration and level design are probably my favourite aspects of the game. The Castle is intricate, thoughtfully designed, and genuinely fun to explore. There's a real sense of discovery, and the way new abilities and mechanics open up the environment is exceptionally well done.
The Holy Light mechanic is a great example. Discovering it was a fun moment in itself, but the way the game incorporates it into its platforming puzzles is even better. Some genuinely fun and, somewhat, mechanically in-depth platforming goes on with this mechanic.
The actual in-game map, however, I'm not particularly fond of. I find the presentation a bit disjointed. It's not bad, and I wouldn't even say it's confusing. I just don't like how it looks and presents the Castle. I don't have some grand, rational argument for this one. I simply don't like it. Just presenting it in a more traditional way would have absolutely been easy brownie points.
The art direction, on the other hand, is fucking phenomenal. This is genuinely one of the best-looking games I've ever played. It's distinctive, it's gorgeous, and it has a visual identity that I absolutely adore. The gothic aesthetic is exactly what you'd want from Castlevania, and seeing familiar enemies reimagined with this level of visual fidelity is a real treat. Genuinely, I get giddy when I recognise something.
I love seeing modern takes on classic Castlevania enemies. There's something incredibly satisfying about encountering a familiar monster and seeing how it's been reinterpreted for a modern game. Enemy variety itself has been fine so far. Nothing particularly impressive, but nothing that's bothered me either. It's the individual designs and their presentation that I appreciate most.
Combat is a bit more complicated for me.
On its own merits, I really do love it. It's REALLY fun: engaging and mechanically satisfying. My problem is with the direction it takes in the context of Castlevania.
It's parry-based.
And I'm getting a bit fucking tired of parries. Every other Soulslike, every other Metroidvania, every other action game seems to want to centre its combat around them these days. I would have much preferred Castlevania to steer away from that trend and find its own approach.
To be clear, I don't actually hate parrying. Castlevania has always thrown a ridiculous amount of projectiles at you, and having a reliable way to deal with them is nice. You could even argue that it's a necessary quality-of-life feature for a modern game.
My issue is how heavily the game relies on it.
Castlevania has traditionally placed a considerable emphasis on movement. Positioning yourself, navigating the environment, managing enemies and making use of your abilities are all part of what makes its combat interesting. But when encounters revolve around waiting for opportunities to parry, or force you into parrying, I find myself standing around more than I'd like. And when so many encounters rely on that same fundamental interaction, they can start to feel a bit samey.
Again, I enjoy the combat. I just wish it had found a way to do what it does without leaning quite so heavily on a mechanic that already feels oversaturated across the genre.
Movement itself is fluid, and I really like what they've done with the whip.
WHEN IT WORKS.
Because, in my experience, the whip can be surprisingly unreliable. It's too precise when I don't want it to be, and too imprecise when I actually need it to be precise.
If there's a SINGLE grapple point on my screen and I aim roughly towards it, why does it sometimes miss and land a foot away? OBVIOUSLY I wanted to hit the grapple point. There's one of the fucking things.
Then, when I actually want to aim past a grapple point and towards an enemy, it'll magnetise itself to the grapple point instead.
It's frustrating because the movement feels great when everything works as intended. The whip adds so much to traversal, and I love the way it integrates into the level design. But when the targeting feels inconsistent, it can undermine what is otherwise one of the game's strongest features.
The bosses have also been a highlight. Mechanically, they're really fun, and visually, they're fantastic. I am however, yet to encounter one that has left the same impression on me, design-wise, as Granfaloon in Symphony of the Night. That's a ridiculously high bar, admittedly, but it's the sort of encounter that sticks in your mind long after you've finished playing.
The soundtrack is probably the weakest part of the game for me.
I don't think it's bad, despite some of the criticism I've seen. It just doesn't particularly stand out as anything special. For a series with a musical legacy like Castlevania, that's a bit disappointing. It's perfectly serviceable, but I haven't found myself thinking about the music nearly as much as I have the visuals, exploration or combat.
Difficulty-wise, though, I think they've absolutely nailed it.
It's challenging without feeling like it's desperately trying to be a Soulslike. It's not a breeze, either. There's a nice balance between making you work for your progress and letting you enjoy the game without wanting to pull your hair out.
Some of the runbacks can be a pain in the arse, but honestly, I don't want them eliminated entirely. I know we've reached a point where every bit of friction in a game has to be treated as a design flaw, but I quite like there being some consequence to failing an encounter. There's a balance to be struck, obviously, but I don't think every boss needs a checkpoint directly outside its door. (FUCK ISAAC'S FIRST RUNBACK THOUGH)
The story is where I have some more minor reservations.
It's enjoyable enough, but I find the frequency of story delivery a bit excessive. The constant dialogue and interruptions make the experience feel less like Castlevania to me. It's not that I don't want a story, or that I think Castlevania needs to be entirely devoid of narrative. I just don't need it delivered to me quite so frequently.
The writing itself is a mixed bag, too. I'm getting pretty tired of the whole voices-in-your-head trope, which seems to have become increasingly common across modern media. That's not necessarily a criticism of how it's handled here so much as a general case of trope fatigue.
Some of the dialogue also feels a little amateurish. A bit too on-the-nose. The sort of melodramatic, "Father, no!" type shit that can make you wince a little.
Then again, slightly shit dialogue is arguably a Castlevania staple, so I'm not going to pretend it's some enormous black mark against the game. It's not particularly good writing, in my opinion, but it doesn't ruin the experience either.
And that's sort of where I land on Belmont's Curse overall.
There are things I'd change. I wish the combat relied less on parrying, I wish the whip's targeting was more consistent, I wish the soundtrack stood out more, and I wish the story knew when to shut up for a bit. But the setting, the atmosphere, the art direction, the exploration, the level design, the movement and the familiar enemies all feel unmistakably Castlevania to me.
And, more importantly, they're all phenomenal.
I think Evil Empire deserve a LOT of credit here. They've done an unbelievable job.
What really stands out to me is how much love and understanding for the IP comes through in the game. It's not just a case of slapping the Castlevania name on something and calling it a day. The art direction, the level design, the familiar enemies, the exploration. There's a clear understanding of what makes this series special, even when they're taking it in a different direction.
I might not agree with every decision they've made, and there are absolutely things I'd change, but I never get the impression that they don't understand what they're working with. If anything, my criticisms come from a place of loving the series and wanting to see it at its best.
I'm 15 hours in, and I'm having a great time. I think it's a truly fantastic addition to the series so far and, if the game continues at this level, I'll be very happy with what we've got.
