News Article

Castlevania: Mirror of Fate Will Take About 16 Hours To Suck You Dry

Posted by Damien McFerran

And that's just the first playthrough

Worried about whether or not Konami's forthcoming 3DS epic Castlevania: Lords of Shadow - Mirror of Fate is going to have the staying power to keep you occupied when it launches in March?

Well put your mind at ease because Konami producer Dave Cox has revealed that the game's first playthrough will take you around 16 hours - and if you want to find all of the game's secrets, you can expect that figure to rise.

Were you expecting a longer - or possibly shorter - adventure? Let us know by leaving a comment.


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (37)



FarukoSH said:

Now thats awesome, i just want this to come out, cant wait anymore, a propper Castlevania



Shiryu said:

It's very disappointing Konami has no plans to bring Lords of Shadow to the Wii U, I would surely pick it up. There has been a lot of mixed feelings towards this 3DS outing, but I am quite looking forward to it.



XFsWorld said:

This 16 hours of play time is awesome! I think this will be my favorite 2D game of 2013 [well 2.5D]



Spoony_Tech said:

This is shaping up to be the best looking graphic wise game this year. If the game play hold up this could be truely epic. Hoping this series return to proper form!!



SkywardLink98 said:

I was expecting more. If they want me to pay $40 on a game it should take me 40 hours before I get bored with it.



Windy said:

I'm undecided on Castlevania im a big fan but this one is not a planned purchase for the year. It just doesn't look right to me. Call me old School. I'm only planning to buy Animal Crossing and Etrian Odyssey and then budget in some Eshop games for the rest of the year



rayword45 said:

@SkywardLink98 What kind of bizarro expectations do you have set? 2D Platformers, First-Person Shooters, many puzzlers, etc; Pretty much every genre besides RPGs WILL NOT clock in like that. This is 3 times longer then most 2D Platformers (even if it's not really a platformer)

And yeah, I actually expected this to be shorter, like around half the time.



Drawdler said:

Remember when we were just ignorant kids and it took us ages to finish games we can beat in hours now? I miss them dayses.



Knux said:

Most people don't seem to realize that there seems to be a second playthrough mentioned, which is around twelve hours. So if you beat both playthroughs, then you should have around twenty-eight hours of playtime. And I'm guessing that if you're aiming for a hundred percent completion on both playthroughs, it can possibly be 30-40 hours long.

If this turns out to be true, then that's pretty amazing. But it won't matter if the game sucks.



TheLilK98 said:

What he forgot to mention was that six of those sixteen hours are spent with werwolf testicles in your face.



LavaTwilight said:

Yeah but most of the time that involved having to start the game from the beginning each time because there was no save function and so we replayed it many times until we mastered those levels.
I've not played any 3D Castlevania (as opposed to the 2D side-scrollers) so I'm looking forward to this and based on the review I may get this relatively quickly



DaveC said:


Not really. 16 hours is actually pretty short. It is no Skyrim that is for sure.

I consider 25-30 hours to be a decent length.



Alpha2797 said:

I have always believed that as well. I believe games should last as much as I pay. For instance, a $60 game should last 60 hours, a $20 game should last 20. A $5 eshop game should last 5 hours.



CanisWolfred said:

@Alpha2797 So I take it you only buy RPGs? Not that that's a bad thing, but again, that's the only genre that regularly clocks over 20 hours. I'm really surprised (read: disappointed) it's lasting as long as it is. If it doesn't feel horribly padded and drawn out already, it'll be a freakin' miracle - let alone being stretched out to last over 40 hours...



rayword45 said:

@DaveC This is a 2D platformer (sort of). NOTHING is going to fulfill those standards.

Go play any 2D Metroid game. All rank between 5-8 hours. Same with 2D Castlevania.

Cave Story is often recognized as being "massive" and that's 6 hours the first time.

And then actual 2D platformers like Sonic and Mario rank 4 hours or less.




I'm really looking forward to have a demo for this game, because I'm just not convinced from what I've seen. FE: AWAKENING had me hooked from what I saw on the videos, nintendo truly resurrected fire emblem and gave it back the glory the GBA games possesed; Castlevania, on the other hand..... well, we all know what a disastrous game lords of shadow on the ps3 and x360 was, generic as f..k.



chiptoon said:

That honestly makes it less appealing to me. I just don't have enough time to commit 16hrs to a game unless it is truly exceptional. This looks like fun, but I can't see committing that much time to it.



AcidFox said:

As a huge Castlevania fan for over two decades, I HATED LoS GUTS, so sadly, I'm not really looking forward to this.



DaveC said:


So you are disappointed it lasts as long as it does? So you would rather get jipped? Do you open a pop (or beer) and get disappointed the can is almost full? Or complain if you buy one get one free, you would just rather have the one?

That doesn't make much sense, you don't need to play the whole thing in one sitting. That is why they have such things as save game and such. Wouldn't you rather get more content for your money? I know I would, and 16 hours is still pretty short unless you are comparing it to phone games.



rayword45 said:

@DaveC 16 hours is incredibly long for a 2D game what are you talking about?

If you had a choice between a half-full beer, a full beer, and a bottomless beer that tastes bad after the same amount as a full beer, which would you choose?

2D games average MUCH LESS then 16 hours. In fact I bet 16 hours is a lie.

And no, you should expect 50 hours for $50. RPGs okay, but name any other game like that.

Hell, people considered NMH2 a grind because they played the original first, and both overall should take about 24 hours for (at launch) $100 not counting extra difficulties.



rayword45 said:

@DaveC tl;dr

More content isn't good when it becomes a grind, and the artificial extension of the game, or the increasing lack of inspiration shows through.



DaveC said:


Who said that automatically a game becomes a grind and uninspired if it has more content? You are making assumptions that the game will suck, so less of a sucky game the better. If it sucks then shorter isn't better, not playing it at all would be. What if it is awesome, and the levels play and are designed well, wouldn't you want more of that? I would.



DaemonSword said:

Hmmmm...whatever most people tend to post on start/finish times, I imagine it is going to be longer. He wasn't specific on whether you are a time racer or not, or if you already know what to get or not. Me, I enjoy getting immersed in a game, like getting my moneys worth, and hate 'racing' to the end (unless its a racing game, of course).



Drawdler said:

@LavaTwilight No, I'm talking about standard games with save and all. I'll give you a few examples from my own childhood.

  • Pokémon Yellow: This game took me months to complete the first time that I played it. I was actually really proud when I got to the 100 Pokémon mark. I can easily finish it and get around that many Pokémon in a couple of days now.
  • Spyro: Year of The Dragon: I actually have quite a funny story with this game. It took me two years to reach Super Bonus Round. The yeti race in that level stopped me from completing the game... It took me another two to get pick it up again and get past that, and I even had to resort to a rather unorthodox method to do so. I beat it and blasted through everything, no tricks, including some things I missed, in roughly a week just recently.
  • Crash Bandicoot: Warped: I just recently played this again. Took me a couple of months to beat the story first time. I did it in a few days the last time I played. It took me years to get all of the Gold Relics, but I have many of the Platinums now after playing for about a month. (On a side note, I wish that I hadn't deleted my original PSX save. )

Etc., etc. I guess I was just less concerned with blasting through games then, and I guess that's the negative effect of actually seeing my backlog. Though it can't just be because I've played these games, because I have the same feelings with new games. Eh.



rayword45 said:

@DaveC It's better to be left wanting more then to be overextended. It's very rare that a game reaches a perfect length, so you want the former.

I'm not saying it would be cool if Zelda was 2 hours long, but this game is REALLY lengthy for a 2D platformer. Your expectations are bizarre and unrealistic.

Go play Metroid: Zero Mission. It lasts only 5 hours, and those 5 hours are definitely worth what I payed at the time. Then go do a marathon of, say, all the God of War games. It's gonna feel repetitive quite soon, even if the games are good.

And NO, I am not assuming the game will suck, but I know it's a 2D platformer, and you have to be on some good drugs to assume that a 2D platformer should last 40 hours. Name 3 2D platformers that last that long.

Case in Point: Bionic Commando Rearmed takes less then 3 hours to finish (not including multiplayer and challenge rooms) yet it's been marked in reviews as being worthy of a full-retail price. I wasn't satisfied myself with the length (though I enjoyed it loads) and I wanted more. Then I played the sequel, and I half-realized that it was a decent length after all.

Go play any of the 2D Metroid games. Some people complain that it's too confusing (with the map size and all), yet those games are consistently less then 10 hours long. This is in the vein of those games. 16 hours is great.



SirQuincealot said:

@rayword45 if a video game leaves you wanting more you got ripped off, ex. fable 3, a video game shoul leave you satisfied with the game, so you can put it down, and then later you can play through it again knowing it will be fun, but for the most part i agree with what you speak

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...