A portion of a Nintendo Life interview with Dave Cox of MercurySteam...
NL: I know you've probably been asked this a million times, but is Koji 'IGA' Igarashi involved with Mirror of Fate in any capacity? What's his current role within Konami?
DC: No, Mr Igarashi is not involved and I don’t know what his current role is in Konami.
NL: Given the parity in terms of technological power between the PS3/360 and Wii U, is there any chance that we could see an enhanced version of Lords of Shadow 2 for the system?
DC: No, we have no plans for a Wii U version.
Full interview here
NL: I know you've probably been asked this a million times, but is Koji 'IGA' Igarashi involved with Mirror of Fate in any capacity? What's his current role within Konami?
DC: No, Mr Igarashi is not involved and I don’t know what his current role is in Konami.
NL: Given the parity in terms of technological power between the PS3/360 and Wii U, is there any chance that we could see an enhanced version of Lords of Shadow 2 for the system?
DC: No, we have no plans for a Wii U version.
RSS Feeds:
Bull
That's harsh.
So this is EXACTLY like Kingdom Hearts. (KH1 PS2, KHCoM GBA, KH2 PS2).
In any case, considering you guys never played Lords of Shadow 1, why do you even care? It would be stupid to play without playing the original game and knowing more about Gabriel.
I agree, it's stupid that there is no Wii U version, but the only reason to seriously care is if you played/enjoyed the first game, which I don't see how you could have if you were banking on a Wii U release and not just getting it on PS3 or 360.
In any case, I'm pumped, since I don't limit myself to one platform/company. I will be enjoying the 3DS game AND LoS2.
Well, that's just Prime.
Pretty harsh stuff. Although I have something I find weird: the original source that leaked Mirror of Fate cited it as a game that would use the 3DS cameras for a "mirror" gameplay function, and that Lords of Shadow 2 would be on Wii U. Does anyone else find it strange that they got the title right (Mirror of Fate) and the console right but they were COMPLETELY off of what it was actually about, as well as Lords of Shadow 2 being on Wii U?
This. The Lords of Shadow series deserves more praise. It was a beautiful game and it honestly makes me sad that the series is ending after Lords of Shadow 2. Why is it that the Mega Man Battle Network series can take over the Mega Man franchise for a decade and Lords of Shadow has to end after three games?
That could have been the plan at one point and we'd never know. Unless the source who leaked the information came from right inside MercurySteam this could have been information from who knows when. The fact that the name turned out right is good enough for me.
Pass on it. I'll track down Monster Tale instead.
ITT: bad assumptions
Considering I LOVE the original handful of games, but I haven't even -liked- Castlevania basically at -all- since Symphony of the Night up until Lords of Shadow brought my interest back, I'm not going to miss IGA that much.
That said, I'm also not that wild about the gameplay or some of the design choices in Mirror yet. But then again, it looks better than the other recent 2D games so far. The story does interest me too.
Here's hoping they end up porting Lords of Shadow 1 to the Wii-U, followed by 2 - or maybe a package deal of some sort.
@LDAF
It's possible they're on NDA and not announcing anything yet until they're Fall conference but if no than Konami is so stupid, Castlevania became what it is because it started on the NES, I don't know why they are being only nice to the 3DS but not being nice to the Wii U if this is what's happening, I want Lords of Shadow 2 and I can get it on my PS3 but Konami is annoying me.
Oh DARN. You mean I won't be able to NOT buy the sequel to the crappy "Castlevania" game Kojima produced? That's it, now I'm NOT GETTING A Wii U!!!!!
Same here. The series really fell off for me post-Symphony. My thoughts after playing the demo for LoS were that it felt more like a Castlevania game than anything I had played in a long time, and I've been thoroughly enjoying the game. (For reference I played the demo last year, but I didn't get the game until Mirror of Fate triggered my memory.)
Sorry folks. But to this long-time CV fan, I have to wholeheartedly disagree. The CV series on HOME consoles (With the half-exception of the okay but should have been a lot better CV64) really fell off after SotN. But the handheld games have been, I would say, rather fantastic. Do I want them to go back to the classic Castlevania style for once? Sure. But is Lords of Shadow the way to do it, much less really Castlevania in the first place? No...no it isn't. Not to this guy.
But I digress.
I guess it'll depend on the release date whether I'm mad that they "have no plans".
Props for telling it like it is... At least LoS felt exciting again. SotN was the pinnacle of Castlevania games though.
Well to Konami's defense their Wii offerings sold horribly and Wii U has yet to prove it can sell 3rd party games.
@NeoSuferoth
Entirely subjective opinion. Mine, is that Super Castlevania IV was the pinnacle of the series.
To each their own I guess.
@M1
I don't think Konami's position in that regard is defensible at all. They released Castlevania Judgement, one of the single biggest pieces of trash I've ever seen in my entire life as a gamer, and that's really saying something. It didn't work as a fighting game, it certainly didn't work as a "Castlevania" game, it just didn't work period. The art style was god awful (turning CV characters into s**ty Death Note anime figures). The voice acting was just plain bad, especially Dracula (I'm still sorry to say that I actually played through the game that far). Even the soundtrack, one of the biggest highlights of the CV series, wasn't that great. The whole package was worthless crap. And then "Iga" acted as if the Wii fans slighted him, for deriding this half-asses NON-Castlevania product that he essentially pooped out for the system. There is no defense for that, and the game deserved to get railed on, because it never should have been made.
On the other hand, Castlevania: The Adventure Rebirth, was a pretty decent remake for WiiWare. And the Rebirth series as a whole sold pretty well for digital downloads. Wonder if that says something, eh Konami? Nah........
@Devil_Rising
Konami released many games on Wii besides that Castlevania game.
The point is Konami feels burned by the Wii, thus are very very reluctant to support Wii U.
@ Nero and Devil
Mine is Castlevania III, but I think we all still generally agree about the series' golden era.
You're right, they did. I've played many of them. However, again, look what they released on Wii.
Elebits and Dewey's Adventure, two new IPs geared in a decidedly more family friendly fashion (Dewey would have been really good it wasn't for some really slippery tilt controls). Castlevania Judgement, which as aforementioned, is terrible. Obscure, subpar stuff like Lost in Blue and Target: Terror. Fishing Master. Wing Island. A bunch of stuff like Scene It! and Dance Dance Revolution. Pro Evo Soccer, which of course sells great in Europe.
Point being, aside from a nice remake of Silent Hill, which actually sold close to half a million copies (and likely would have sold more if they had actually promoted it more), Konami, like Capcom, like Namco, like a lot of big publishers, didn't bother even trying to put any of their "AAA" content on Wii. So again, I would still argue that their position is rather indefensible. You can't put stuff like Dewey's Adventure and Wing Island on a console, and then get mad when it doesn't sell like hotcakes. If they put bigger, better franchises on Wii, they likely would have sold better than a lot of what they DID put on Wii. So they have no right to complain. And instead of taking the approach that "Maybe Nintendo's just bad luck for us", they should actually put their best stuff on Wii U, and SEE whether or not it will sell. Odds are, it will.
@RustyCage
CVIII is an excellent game. I just wish it wasn't so goddamn hard. lol
With Nintendo consoles beggars (Nintendo console owners) can't be choosers.
Capcom did release Monster Hunter Tri, RE4: Wii Edition, Okami, and a few other big games on Wii.
You're right, Capcom did do that. They also put Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, and Zack & Wiki.
The problem is this though. Aside from Monster Hunter, they haven't put ANY of their big guns on Wii, in new form, at all. They gave Wii owners a re-re-re-released edition of RE4, which, granted, is arguably the best version of the game because of the controls. But then they turned around and didn't even bother to try to put RE5 on Wii, saying Wii "couldn't do it", which was bulls*** for a couple of very compelling reasons: 1) They could have easily downported it and used the RE4 engine....it would have been fine. And 2) They put a version of RE5 on 3DS, which arguably doesn't even have the full power of the Wii, yet it looks great, and runs fine. Point being, regardless of the fact that RE5 sucks, it was still a huge multi-console release, and their excuses for not porting it to Wii have since turned out to be as weak as they seemed then. And as an added note to all this, the "Chronicles" games on Wii, while rail shooters, graphically looked very good, as in considerably better even than RE4, once more pointing out that RE5 could have looked just fine on Wii.
Or look at Tat vs. Capcom. Very good game. One serious problem. Very few people know what Tatsunoko, or any of the animes those charcters are from, ARE. So while the game actually did sell pretty well (around 500k worldwide), once again, it was kind of like they were throwing a game out to die on Wii. Yet they turned around and DIDN'T port SFIV or MvC3 onto Wii, at all. Didn't even try. Why? "Wii can't do it", says the ever-present genius of Christian Svenson. Oh what's that? You ported SFIV to the iPhone, and the 3DS, and it worked fine? Right......
Thing is, again, you look at Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, graphically speaking, it looks real good. Similar (if less ridiculous looking) art style to the other games mentioned. They could have easily ported SFIV and/or MvC3 over to Wii, with that level of graphics, and it would have been fine. Something with "Street Fighter" on the cover, alone, would sell well. But slapping such an unknown entity as "Tatusunoko" on the cover of an American game? No wonder a lot of people passed it by.
Then you've got a game like Spyborgs. A "big exclusive" for Wii, which originally looked like an exceptionally cool, Saturday-morning-cartoon based action game. Very quirky, very unique, possibly very fun. What do they do to it instead? They transform it into some far more generic action/beat 'em up, which while it had good graphics, was otherwise painfully dull in most respects, story and gameplay especially. You could pull off some cool moves...but who cares when the gameplay itself is just so damned dull. And to top it all off, Capcom gave it just about zero promotion, so obviously, it bombed. And then they act like "Our games just don't sell on Wii.....well, except for the name ones like Monster Hunter and Resident Evil that we actually promote......but yeah."
Point is, that was the trend on Wii for a lot of third parties. Roll out your throw/away side titles on the system, then act mad when they don't sell and use that as an excuse why you can't/won't put your bigger games on the system. It was BS when the system first came out, and it's still BS today. If Activision can put Call of Duty 3 on Wii, regardless of the fact that it doesn't look graphically anywhere as good as it's counterparts, and it still plays well, has all the modes and online components, etc.....then ANY publisher can put a great number of games on Wii, if they were just willing to put in the effort. Most don't seem to be, and would rather come up with BS excuses as to why that is.
And besides, we were originally talking about Konami. You made the comment that Wii owners (beggars) can't be choosers. Well.....sure we can. We can choose not to support shovelware and sub-par products that publishers put on Wii instead of giving Wii owners the games they deserve to be playing. Konami never bothered to put anything like a Metal Gear (even a spinoff title), or REAL Castlevania, a new Contra game (which with the IR pointing could have been a blast), nothing really. Certainly none of their big games. And the one big name title they did put out, Silent Hill, was a remake and wasn't promoted. You can't get mad at a lack of success in something if you put little to no effort in the first place. And that goes for a video game publisher/developer just as well as anything else.
So maybe they'll learn their lesson for Wii U? Regardless of the fact that the name Konami means very little compared to what it used to mean even a decade or more ago.
@Devil_Rising
You just need to accept that logic and rational thinking have no place in the video game industry.
Konami also gave almost no support to the Gamecube and N64 as well, so by now you shouldn't expect them to follow through.
lol Fair enough.
View the full discussion!