/vr/ - Retro Games

I'd very much like to know what happened for people to believe this shit for 25 years

>>6517748
>>6514687

I believe it comes from 2 things: US marketing for the game and US reviewers at the time.

Rondo had some exposure in magazines under "preview" and "import" and it was praised to hell.
So it looks like when DX made it to SNES, the american marketing was all about trying to say "you're getting the Rondo you wanted so much".

Indeed, *we* call Rondo "Castlevania: Rondo of Blood", but Rondo's true name is Dracula X: Chi No Rondo. The Rondo part is a subtitle, the name of the game is Dracula X.
Meanwhile the SNES 1995 game was called Dracula XX, which differentiates it from "Dracula X" (Rondo) but still says it's a spiritual successor.
On top of this, for the US release of Dracula XX, they changed the official art in the booklet to that of Dracula X: Chi No Rondo; despite the game having its own new dedicated art in the booklet in the Jap version.

It is also worth noting that PAL release didn't use the name Dracula X and sticked to the new art in the booklet.

And then, shit like pic related would be the double edge of the sword. Have stupid marketing that pretends a game is not what it is and you get stupied reviewers meme as a response that are still anchored in people's brains today.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, after all, it wasn't uncommon at the time to have several completely different version of games sharing the same name, and at the same time, it makes "sense" to call "Dracula XX", a sequel to "Dracula X" which we didn't get, "Dracula X" itself just like Final Fantasy IV was FF2.
It would take require further researchs to back up this theory.