/vr/ - Retro Games

>Not only is it stupidly easier
That's why. Classic Castlevania is the epitome of "git gud" along with its other Konami brethren. I don't like it for the same reason, it's just too easy.

>>6403864
4th gen Castlevania is overall easier than Castlevania 1 and 3.
Also OP contradicts himself, claims it's easy, but then says he finds it more frustrating than the NES games on the later levels. It's kind of true 4 starts easy, but gets gradually pretty challenging. Also tough luck about insta-kills and enemies knocking you back, that was also on the NES games.
Rondo of Blood is the easiest classicvania. Bloodlines is medium level, but on replays once you know the game it's fairly easy too.
4 is only "easy" when you judge the game by its first few stages, and when you just brute-force your way through the game using continues. Getting through the whole game (especially the last 4 levels) without losing a continue can be a challenge. Certainly easier to do that on Rondo or Bloodlines.
However, there were harder CV games in 4th gen, X68K and Dracula X SNES. But I still think the last 4 levels of Castlevania 4 stand as some of the hardest moments in the series.

>>6403103
It was a pompous, highly advertised next-gen reboot. People rememebr their sense of wonder and are uncritical of their youthful experiences.
I never played any classicvanias as a kid so now I can tell that CV1 is by far the best, while CV4 is so-so and Bloodlines is rather trashy. RoB is nothing special either. x64k is the best 16bit one.

>>6403881
CV1 is an almost perfect game but I don't care much for level 4, and to be fair, upon replaying the game many many times, stages 1, 2 and 4 are always a slog. The game is short though and the other levels are genius (especially level 3 and 5), but I think Castlevania III and IV are better than 1.
Still all pretty good. And how the fuck is Rondo trashy? It might be easy, but it's a tightly designed game.

>>6403892
Rondo is alright. I just think that its holy grail reputation from the late 90s warps some people's perception of it.
Bloodlines is trashy compared to other classicvanias. It's not a bad game per se, but on a scale where CV1 is 9/10 and CV3 is 8/10, Bloodlines is, like, 4/10, in my opinion.

>>6403103
>Not only is it stupidly easier
But that's wrong. The only hard CV games are Haunted Castle, CV3, and Chronicles.

CV4 is harder to beat than 1.

>>6403925
What about Dracula X SNES?
Also, I'd say CV1 is still slightly harder than CV IV, mostly if you're playing it blind for the first time and don't know about the holy water stunlock for Death.
But level-design wise, yeah I think IV is harder.

I was thinking of making a similar thread. CV4 is overrated as fuck.

I think the main issue of the game, when you look at it, is that level design and enemy design/placement is similar to CV1/3; except that you're given free-er jump movement and whip use.

In other words it feels like most of the game is not designed around the updated whip and movement and it feels like you're "cheating" your way through everything.

Then, there are the objectively bad parts; most notably the ones that abuse the SNES capabilities just because they can.

Pic related is the first example. Look on the left, there is a jump that looks completely feasible, but if you try you'll clip through it to your death.

What you have to do however, is simply WAIT, when there is no idencation that you should wait. In fact it's the contrary, if there is ANYTHING CV games taught you is that when you meet Medusa Heads, they spawn infinitely and you're supposed to make it through fast and waiting is a death sentence.
Not to

Then there is these. The 2 spikes traps next to each. The problem is, the timing can easily be fucked and lead to scenarios where it's not passable.
That is because the timing of the spike trap depends on WHEN it is loaded into the screen; so depending on how you walk into this, you can walk into a scenario that's sure death. The way to fix this is to backtrack and walk further again, terrible thoughtless design.

>>6403103
>most of the music doesn't even come close to castlevania 3's

Look nigger, if you want to complain about difficulty go ahead but don't even pretend like IV's soundtrack wasn't god-tier.

I fucking hate the contrarianism in general around IV. It looks good, it sounds good, and it's not piss easy, it controls better than the previous games which is *not* a bad thing and it's just not as hard as some autists seem to think it should be. IV is good. IV is real fucking good. Deal with it.

>>6403941
>In other words it feels like most of the game is not designed around the updated whip and movement and it feels like you're "cheating" your way through everything.
Enemy placement is very different from I/III. For one, CV IV has a lot of enemies coming at you at angles, be it bats or jumping skeletons, which require you to be fast with the diagonal whipping. Failing to successfully stop these enemies is what causes the famous knockback deaths that OP complains about, so they definitely took the directional whip into account. As for the mid-air control, I still think it's not that easy because Simon's sprite is significantly larger, so you have less room to improvise mid-air. Rondo made this actually more easy/less CV-like because you can control mid-air, but Richter's sprites is still smaller. IV and Chronicles having bigger sprites is an extra challenge in itself, without going full gargantuan retarded like in Haunted Castle.
I'll give you that there are some parts where it feels like cheating (like dropping the whip down to kill enemies downstairs, or upstairs), but honestly, waiting on stairs in CV was never too fun, so I welcome being able to use the whip on those occasions. At least IV still doesn't let you jump while you're on stairs, so it still has that challenge.
>Then, there are the objectively bad parts; most notably the ones that abuse the SNES capabilities just because they can.
Both mode7 rooms on stage 4 are rather short. You do make a point with the pic you posted, but the game gives you a checkpoint right on that room, so it expects players to try jumping once. The other mode7 parts of the game were well used I think, most notably the chandeliers, good platforming section.

Then, there are these parts; which make absolutely NO sense whatsoever but it's there "because they can".

The worst one is the one in stage B-2. The one with the sawblade chasing you at the same time. That one scroll has so many design flaws I don't even know where to begin.

>if you go too slow, you're fucked
>but if you go too fast, you're also fucked and the sawblade will catch up in an unavoidable way
>only the "in between" scenario works

>collapsing staircase, but if you bump your head onto a ceiling while jumping on a stair, you'll fall to your death
>needless to say the area is cramped as fuck and this can happen several tiles

>floating platforms that move upward
>the upward scrolling triggers so late it's impossible to see the spikes/ceiling above and dodge them
>spikes which hit detection is twice as big as they look

>near the top, that one pixel jump from the top of a staircase onto platforms on the other side of the screen
>gotta jump close to staircase but the staircase as sticky, preventing you to jump
>stray too far from the staircase and the jump is impossible
>what is supposed to help the player becomes an hindrance
>THEN, if you jump a first time, have the upward scrolling scroll a TINY bit, but realize you're fucked and decide to jump back on the "safe" zone near the staircase -> the bit of scrolling that you triggered make the jump now impossible, you're in a dead man walking scenario

All of these are just god awful bad design. The worst part is dying and seeing Belmont crawl to his death and lay there... his corpse floating in the middle of the screen. That alone should tell you how much the devs gave a fuck.

>>6403943
you can stand and walk over them

>>6403967
> You do make a point with the pic you posted, but the game gives you a checkpoint right on that room

Checkpoint with ZERO candles
Meaning no whip upgrade to catch the hang thingey or kill the Medusa Heads

>>6403970
I know that. You go from left to right there; I took the screenshot after going through.

Try jumping on top of the platforms when you start lower than them.

>>6403967
>CV IV has a lot of enemies coming at you at angles

So does CV3. Like the crows. You're supposed to wait and time your shot perfectly for when they go down; which in CV4, you don't have to do.

Like seriously how many scenarios are there when there is a platform with enemies above you, and you can just whip up from a safe spot below before being on the same level as the enemy.

>>6403968
That was some quick posting. Did you copy-paste this from another thread?
>Then, there are these parts; which make absolutely NO sense whatsoever but it's there "because they can".
I don't get it, what about that part? I actually like it because it has some interesting design, it continually scrolls vertically, but if you keep going up, you will appear on the bottom part again, it loops vertically. You can even deviate a bit from the main road and find some extra hearts and gold (although it's risky and you might get crushed). But overall, it's still a straightforward part anyway. What about it was made "because they can"? It's just a level set piece like many others, is it because of the vertical scrolling platforms?
>>but if you go too fast, you're also fucked and the sawblade will catch up in an unavoidable way
Hold on, what? There's nothing wrong with going fast, it's the way you're supposed to do it. How are you fucked if you go fast? Please explain.
>spikes which hit detection is twice as big as they look
Don't think this is true. The game also gives you enough time to react, gotta be fast, though,it's a small window, but perfectly doable. I actually think I died there very few times.
Your complaints seem more like you need to get better at the game, unless you can explain in what way the game "fucks you up for going fast", because I'm sure that doesn't happen.
>The worst part is dying and seeing Belmont crawl to his death and lay there... his corpse floating in the middle of the screen. That alone should tell you how much the devs gave a fuck.
I'll give you this one, they could have added another animation for mid-air death, but that's such a nitpick, I don't think this means the devs didn't give a fuck when the game is full of other details.

>>6403971
>Meaning no whip upgrade to catch the hang thingey or kill the Medusa Heads
???
You can perfectly catch the handle, and you can kill medusas in 1 hit with the default whip.

>>6403943
This is the one part I'll actually agree with, the catacombs stage is fucking terrible. Too many instant deaths, not enough checkpoints and you have to slog through it all just to face a random number generator with the disappearing bridge. I'm always tempted to skip it but pride demands I actually progress through the game naturally and eventually I always make it.

This stage and the bits with the collapsing stairs are the only bullshit parts, though, The rest of the game is fun as fuck. Think I'll break out my SNES and play it again, thanks for reminding me what an awesome game this is OP

>>6403975
>So does CV3. Like the crows.
Not the same, and I'm talking about bats that come flying at you at high speed, and skeletons that jump at you while you're climbing stairs.
I didn't mention crows because yeah they are in other CV games too, but the diagonal-flying bats and jumping skeletons are more unique to CV4, and obviously placed to make the player use the diagonal whip.

Oh great, another thread of Castlevania autists arguing about which game is the best. We certainly have never had this exact thread hundreds of times before

Why does everyone need to have such an extreme opinion of this game. Stop pretending it's the best or the worst thing ever, it all looks fucking silly. It's just an atmospheric romp that's just hard enough for you to pay attention but not hard to the point of having to memorize everything or frustration. It's got a weird rhythm at times, but it just means you have to pay a little attention. Not the best thing ever, not an insult to Castlevania. Just a game that's made to cruise through it and enjoy. You turn the lights off, play it for an afternoon and that's it. It's pleasant and fun for what it is.

I still like it along pretty much every other Castlevania and there's nothing you fucks can do to stop me.

>>6403982
A contrarian autist on /vr/ made up bullshit to support their retarded opinion?

>>6403989
>>6403995
I just like discussing the 'vania.
I've played the series a lot of times so I know the games a lot, and I like to discuss them, even if some of the other guys are shitposters who just want to shit-talk popular games.
At least this thread seems less shitpost-y than the usual, as we're actually arguing about the games instead of ad-hominem or irrelevant shit like console wars, at least for now.

>>6403981
>I don't get it, what about that part? I

Try to see it from Belmont's perspective and explain me what the fuck is going on there. There is a still foreground, and a moving background. They don't collide with each others but you collide with both. It doesn't make any sense.

>How are you fucked if you go fast? Please explain.

Every time I tried to go as fast as I could, going for the fastest route and never stopping to hit any candles, the sawblade would appear out of nowhere when it's time to kill the enemy that comes out wall near the top. If you go a little more slowly, get some candles on the way, you'll notice that same sawblade appear at around the same elapsed time, but in such a way that it's not a threat.

>Don't think this is true.
Part of the platform above the spikes also kill you.

>The game also gives you enough time to react, gotta be fast, though,it's a small window, but perfectly doable
No fucking way it's doable on a first playthrough unless you got really lucky. The scrolling is so late, if you see a spike above you it's already too late, jumping will cause you to jump onto the spikes anyway.

i've seen people complain about the same thing about the collapsing bridge on Dracula X, which I thought was bullshit, there is definitely enough time on that bridge to see and kill the enemies ahead unless you keep jumping like a retard which puts you at risk. Here it's a lot worse. You have no choice but to repeatidly die to know the spikes/ceiling placements, so you can jump and place yourself the ONE way the devs want you to, in a way that predicts what you know comes ahead rather than reacting to what you see.

>>6403982
The point is, the jump looks feasible, nothing hints at the fact that you have to wait; and if you try, your "reward" is starting over losing all your shit and they don't even give a single whip upgrade; something that pretty which every single other checkpoint has. All it takes is one candle.

>>6403995
Absolutely correct, except I'd say you can really only cruise through the first 2/3, once you hit stage 8 some precision is required

>>6403995
It can easily be a good game on its own and one of the worst games in the Castlevania series. It's a pretty solid series, you know. Even its worst aren't that bad.

>>6404007
>Try to see it from Belmont's perspective
Oh shit, are you the guy who made that SMW thread the other day?
>Every time I tried to go as fast as I could, going for the fastest route and never stopping to hit any candles, the sawblade would appear out of nowhere when it's time to kill the enemy that comes out wall near the top
Really? This legit never happened to me. Are you sure you're not taking too long to kill the wall golems? I always just go fast and honestly I never see the saw again. I remember it gave me a lot of trouble the first few times I played the game, though.
>nothing hints at the fact that you have to wait
To be fair, the spikes have a skeleton lying there that grab your attention. It can be seen as just scenery detail, but it's actually clearly a "don't jump" warning. And the whip upgrade that you mention is absolutely not needed at that part.
If you want to complain about "bullshit" in Castlevania, CV1 and 3 also have a lot of that. For example that one background asset on a specific part in level 4 of CV1, which looks like a platform, so you jump and you fall to the water, or Death itself. Or the falling blocks part in CVIII, very infamous.
Yeah the games have parts like that, after all, it's a demonic castle, isn't it? But the games are still overall fair, and if you pay attention and learn from your mistakes, it shouldn't be frustrating.

>>6403995
I like the game too, but seeing people like e-celebs praise it as "the best thing ever" while also wrongly claiming that Dracula X is "a butchered port of Rondo", I'm sure you can understand that can trigger responses that will tell you what is wrong with the game.

I just think when it comes to the details it's not a very well crafted game, and people claim it's the best because of the musics, graphics, atmosphere; and because with mindless play you can achieve a lot in the game.

Personally I'd rather keep replaying Dracula X or Bloodlines which despite their flaws, are overall much more tightly crafted.

>>6404031
>Bloodlines which despite their flaws, are overall much more tightly crafted.
Bloodlines is honestly one of the most janky classicvanias IMO, still a great game, and all CV games have great music and graphics, Bloodlines included, but the level design has some really good parts, and some really bad ones. Say what you want about Castlevania IV, the mode7 rooms and whatever, but at least every level in CV4 has platforming, Bloodlines has levels like Versailles which are straight corridors.

>>6404001
Don't misunderstand, I love discussing Castlevania too, but this thread just got off to a weird start. Nitpicking bits of level design that can be circumvented by paying a little attention, touted as if they're the worst thing ever. Super Ghouls and Ghosts and Contra 3 have such parts too and they're fine there too, they are just part of learning the game. These games aren't fucking Mario. Fuck my life I'd argue Castlevania 1 and 3 have even more parts with odd rhythms and rules you gotta learn, what about those block things in those WRETCHED mines, the "sinking tower" in the stage with the Doppleganger as the boss, or CV1 stage 4 as a whole? These are all gimmicky things that are in those games and are part of learning it, and they are all fine. They are not worth raising this big of a stink, you learn to deal with them or don't, and if you do, you enjoy the game.

>>6404009
Of course man, the game is not braindead easy, not at all. The last batch of stages are a decent challenge, which is why I said you have to "pay attention". In something like CV3 or a GnG however, due to the ruthless and sometimes random nature of the challenge howerver, I would have gone a little further and say you have to "give them your all" or something like that.

This game's not that ruthless. It's made to wow you. And that's fucking fine.

>>6404020
I don't know man, the game is competently designed enough to not merit that reductionist treatment if you ask me. It flows well and it's not lazy in pretty much any regard. It's not Castlevania Adventure or Legends, it's not Mirror or Fate or Judgement. It's just a little different than the rest.

>>6404031
>wrongly claiming that Dracula X is "a butchered port of Rondo"
Yes this is rather retarded, but I don't see why CV4 is to blame. I like Rondo but you have to agree it also has its jank.

Still that's fucking fine, rather than Rondo I find myself going for 3, 4 or Bloodlines but you do you fren.

>>6404031
Honestly claiming IV is the best thing ever isn't too wrong, even if it's also OK to have another CV as the favorite, IV is still pretty damn good.
E-celebs shouldn't be a reason to shit on the game.
But yeah I agree about the whole misinfo about Dracula X being a Rondo port. I myself trusted that for a while and missed on playing a good CV game until I finally tried it.

>>6404025
>>Every time I tried to go as fast as I could, going for the fastest route and never stopping to hit any candles, the sawblade would appear out of nowhere

quit fucking lying, anon. The blade moves at a set pace, it doesn't magically catch up to you.

>>6404042
>Nitpicking bits of level design that can be circumvented by paying a little attention, touted as if they're the worst thing ever.
Yeah OP just seems frustrated and it's mostly his own fault, even though he made some valid points, he also made some stupid ones that invalidates the others.
But I mean, at least OP is trying to actually discuss the game, much better than the usual empty shitposting.

Why has there been, like, 3 Castlevania threads up simultaneously for the past week now? Did something Castlevania-related happen recently and people are suddenly obsessed with it?

>>6404069

>>6404069
There's always Castlevania threads around.
But no I don't think there's anything castlevania-related going on at the moment.

>>6404075
At least it's about 3 different kind of CV games, classic, 3D and metroidvania.

People make too much of how "easy" it is. It's not easier than other CVs and there's nothing wrong with being easy, even. It just feels padded and bloated at points. It's the worst great CV.

>>6403941
>Then, there are the objectively bad parts; most notably the ones that abuse the SNES capabilities just because they can.
Everything about the game screams "early SNES": mode 7 gimmicks, flashy stuff the programmers couldn't get to run at full speed, few onscreen enemies at a time, "cool" stuff with questionable gameplay value like the wiggly whip, HUEG sprites.

>>6404084
>Everything about the game screams "early SNES": mode 7 gimmicks
Everything? I can count the mode 7 gimmicks with one hand. Most of the game is straightforward classicvania action.
>few onscreen enemies at a time
way more than CV1 or III ever had, though. Also, did you try the 2nd loop? It adds a considerable amount of enemies.

>>6404089
>Everything? I can count the mode 7 gimmicks with one hand.
yeah but everybody hates those parts

>way more than CV1 or III ever had, though.
More than the birds pelting you with midgets in CV1 for example? Big threats in SCV are usually the environment or bosses.

>Also, did you try the 2nd loop? It adds a considerable amount of enemies.
no

actually I never quite finished it and I'm playing thru it now, I'm more eager to see the 2nd loop than the ending.

>>6403103
It's fun.

>>6404130
Not him but I agree in the enemies, and the dining hall comes to mind: there you can have dancing ghosts, ectoplasm, bats and other kinds of enemies harassing you at the same time, that casket roulette too.

>>6404130
>yeah but everybody hates those parts
More like everybody exaggerates those parts, also not really, a lot of people like them because of how unique they are graphically.
IMO, the rotating room part is great the first time you get there, because of the surprise factor, but it is dragging on subsequent playthroughs - however, it's not even that long.
The other mode7 parts I don't really see the problem. The golem boss? The chandelier? It's fine, don't see a reason to hate.
>More than the birds pelting you with midgets in CV1 for example?
Yes. Stage 5 of IV gives you harpies with fleamen, and also bonepillars shooting fireballs and flying goblins.

What is it about this series that attracts shitposting retards to it? You can have an okay thread about any other series on this board, why is it only Castlevania that ends up this bad?

>>6404147
I think it's mostly because all of the classic games are very good, and people just need to have "hot takes" or snowflake opinions.
As another anon said before, Castlevania threads are like the real demon castle: full of traps, death and fiendish vibes.

>>6403103
I remember when it came out I did not get it because I thought Simon looked stupid. Even though I loved Castlevania. The power of a pre teen brain. However, when I got intriduced to emulation I decided to give it a try. And whatever in the fuck that spinning level was turned me off. I could not really figure out the controls on it. So I basically told the game to fuck off. Played it more recently, and the game is very good. But fuck that spinny shit. I think I just got up to that part again and started playing some other shit.

>>6404052
>The blade moves at a set pace

Exactly. They always appear at the same time, though it's impossible to remember precisely when.

Now imagine you're fighting a wall-dude enemy at the bottom of the screen, which you have to kill otherwise you can't go on; and, the blade appears out of nowhere but absolutely no time to jump to safety when being at the bottom of the screen.

Now - had you been a tad bit slower, the blades would have appeared at the same time, yes; but as you were going up stairs, further UP the screen, thus being safe.

This is why the sawblade is bad design. Instead of appearing randomly every X second, it should appear when the player reaches a certain Y placement on the vertical scrolling.
This way the dev would have been able to provide given challenge depending on what other things there are on the other screens, instead of having a random unavoidable "LOL FUCK YOU" death sentence which can trigger when sometimes you're playing BETTER than other times.

>>6404213
>Now - had you been a tad bit slower, the blades would have appeared at the same time, yes; but as you were going up stairs, further UP the screen, thus being safe.
This doesn't make sense anon.
The saw will not show up if you're fast. Trust me. You can do it.

>>6404284
>This doesn't make sense anon.

Yet that's how it is

>The saw will not show up if you're fast. Trust me. You can do it.

I've done it several ways. It's not about "getting good", it's about game design philosophy. You're missing the point entirely, I've already explained it in details several times so I'm not sure what else can be said.

>blade shows at set amount of X time
>due to the scrolling, that means it can appear anywhere you're are on the screen, sometimes in unavoidable ways
Now combine the two
>it means it can punish the player during moments when he is doing better, being faster, than other attempts

You're not even trying to think about it and your entire thinking doesn't go beyond "get good", no wonder you can't comprehend how right or wrong basic game design can be.

The sawblade appearing every X amount of time is just as retarded as the chained spikes platforms which timing differ depending on when they're loaded on the screen.
It's just game design without enough thought and testing put into it. For the record, CV3 got the those same chained spike platforms right and their timing didn't differ no matter when they were loaded on the screen, so they have no excuse, all they had to do was reproduce something already existing and they fucked it up anyway, further proving they didn't think about the design of their gimmicks hard enough.

>>6404147
Pretty civil discussion until you showed up and dropped the R-word, friendo. Really though it's because the good CV games are spread across so many consoles.

>>6404336
Okay, so if I'm understanding what you're trying to say, you say that the saw appears after a set amount of time.
Alright, we can agree on that.
>due to the scrolling, that means it can appear anywhere you're are on the screen, sometimes in unavoidable ways
So you mean that if you're on the bottom part of the screen, the saw will eventually suddenly appear and insta-kill you, right?
But then...
>it means it can punish the player during moments when he is doing better, being faster, than other attempts
This is the part I don't get. Okay, the saw starts going up, and you're going fast. Then, how can it kill you if you're going faster?
I feel like you're trolling, and I'm not the only one disagreeing with you/thinking you're making shit up, but maybe you're just not explaining yourself well.
The saw always goes at the same speed. Every single time I replay Castlevania IV, I do it as fast as possible, and I NEVER see the saw, other than at the beginning. So I think you're either playing a glitched version, or you're making shit up. Maybe record a video or something, because it doesn't happen on my cart.
>further proving they didn't think about the design of their gimmicks hard enough.
shitposting.

>>6403103
I have never liked CV4. I hate the colors I hate the music and I hate the control.
Bloodlines is the better of the 16-bit ones to me but I admit, as a card carrying Sega fanboy, that it is ugly as fuck. Dracula X on SNES doesn't get the respect it deserves.

Rondo is my go-to. It does everything the others do but better, (except the Mode-7 style crap) I like the multiple exits, the control, the music, the sprites (even if they did wend up getting reused to hell later) are better..the whole thing is just put together with a polish not seen in 4 or Bloodlines.

I went into Rondo skeptical as hell. No way it would live up to the hype. It did for me

>>6404427
> Dracula X on SNES doesn't get the respect it deserves.

I blame poor marketing. It's not really a "port".

That and released a bit late in the SNES life I suppose, it's the only explanation I have for reviewers calling it "ugly" when it's a gorgeous game that does everything in its power to look mordern, down to making sure nothing in the levels look "block/square based" like any previous CV game.

>>6404458
>Not quite Castlevania
The fuck? Dracula X Is more Castlevania than IV, Bloodlines or Rondo were.
Granted, IV still is the most classic one because it still retains most of the original features (whip upgrades, numeral ranks, can't jump on stairs, etc), but Dracula X SNES has level design that is precisely Castlevania as fuck. Rondo, on the other hand, is more proto-SOTN, with a lot of emphasis on exploration and not very challenging.
These reviews are really dishonest. I feel these magazine reviewers just felt special for actually having played the PC Engine CD game (while most of the rest of mortals had to wait like a decade later for emulation), so they were being all hipsters about it. At least the guy who gave it a 6.5 mentions that it has different levels, that's at least better than the usual "it's a port" bullshit.

>>6404458
>>6404480
Besides people comparing Dracula X to IV's multi directional whip or Rondo of Blood, you need to remember this was a late SNES game from 1995. At the time, everyone was expecting flashy 3D effects and games that were long as fuck with lots of things to do (DKC2, Yoshi's Island).
Then comes Dracula X, a game that actually looks amazing (probably the best looking 4th gen Castlevania along with X68K) but is about as long as Castlevania 1, hard as nails and doesn't have a lot of wow effects other than the flaming background on stage 1, which while looking pretty nice, isn't more impressive than some of the stuff IV pulled off.
So, you have to keep these things into account.
Also, some magazines in '98 gave Symphony of the Night 7/10s too. Remember, 2D wasn't the hottest thing in the late 90s, people wanted THREE DEE.
I think even if the original Rondo of Blood got an identical port on SNES, with the same levels, playable Maria and all, reviews would have still been not that high for it in 1995.

Dracula X protip:

When coming down from a high jump, the player rests on his knees for a second.
You can cancel that by using the whip as you're about to hit the ground.

Try it when landing on the collapsing bridge at the start of stage 2 and you'll have enough breathing time to just walk your way through the rest of it while whipping the mermaids too.
In fact, there is a candle on to hit on your way down to the bridge, thus hinting at the thing, though it may be unintentional.

>>6404458
It invites such fucking comparison, though, marketing or not. Especially with that first stage, assets, and mechanics being in parity with the PCE game.

>>6404570
>Especially with that first stage, assets, and mechanics being in parity with the PCE game.
But right in the first stage you notice it's totally different. Only assets reused is Richter's sprite, and enemy sprites. The rest of the level (tilesets, backgrounds, layout) is completely new. On the first level of Dracula X you have sections with rotating spiked platforms and medusa heads, no such thing on Rondo of Blood. The first boss is also completely different, you got the dragon/water serpent on Rondo, and Kerberos on Dracula X.
When I finally played DX, my thought wasn't "oh it's a bad port of Rondo", it was "oh nice, this is like a semi sequel to Rondo!"

>>6404570
It's probably easy to say in hindsight after the fact but, even if the base idea of the game might have been
>let's port Rondo to a console people actually have

once the decision was made to make it completely different, they should have came up with a new excuse of a story that lets them get away with re-using the same sprites.

Then it was all that was needed to market it as a brand new game instead of a "port". "Ports" will less less and having a "port" that's actually not a port is just asking for even more trouble.

>>6404596
>less less

sell less

>>6404570
No, dude, they're two completely different games. I think the SNES one sucks dicks, but it's completely different from RoB in almost every way.

>>6404581
>playing Rondo first
Okay, zoomy. Think most of us western non-zooms found it to be a weird downgrade from IV, yet still decent. I then found out of about Rondo, played it, and realized X was a C-team asset flip. It's not bad. I've learned to appreciate it more with time, but it's definitely a non-canon, not-as-well-designed reimagining of Rondo. Not a sequel.

>>6404609
>I think the SNES one sucks dicks
Why?

>>6404536
Dracula X protip 2:

When enemies flash after being hit, they don't damage the player on contact.

When a Axe-Armor is rushing towards you, if you time it perfectly and hit it just before it rushes into you, it will go through you during its i-frame and thus not hit you.

>>6404609
I never said they weren't different games, but they start the exact fucking same, down to the music, and reuse a lot of assets. It's like they thought about porting it, then didn't have the chops or changed focus half way.

>>6404610
>Okay, zoomy
Yeah you got me, I'm 26 though.
>C-team asset flip
Dunno about "C-team" but even if it was, it's still Konami. Konami's C team is an A team in most other companies.
>asset flip
Most of the assets are new and, also, look better than Rondo. Rondo's graphics are very primitive, they still look good because of tasteful art direction, but at times it's very minimalist with the black backgrounds and what not. Dracula X devs put a lot more effort into the levels backgrounds and assets.
>but it's definitely a non-canon
Honestly after reading the Akamatsu notes, no game after CV3 is canon, so whatever.
>not-as-well-designed
This might be subjectivities, but I don't see what's so bad about DX, it has the tight design of all the other CV games. People often mention stuff like "too many spear knights" or "dracula is too difficult", but I don't think those are valid. It's like complaining that CV1 has too many skeletons, and Death is too hard.
>Not a sequel
I don't think that's up to debate, they tried to do a reimagining as you said, but I don't think it was not as well designed. In fact, after having played Rondo so many times, I don't find it as exciting anymore, while DX still puts up some good challenge for me.

>>6404618
No, they play completely differently. The only similarity is some borrowed assets. Gameplay and physics are completely different.

>>6404628
They play the same, except for some gravity and movement speed. What great mechanical difference is there other than that? Same subweapons, mostly same crashes. Same abilities.

>>6404618
>It's like they thought about porting it, then didn't have the chops or changed focus half way.
But they went ahead and made even better looking assets?
It has less levels, and no playable Maria, but I think they put a lot of effort in the assets, which again, were mostly all new.
Reusing sprites isn't something exactly new, since they did that again in SOTN. I understand it's more noticeable on DX because it's the same plot and locations (more or less), but when you compare the actual level assets, DX has all new ones, didn't reuse anything from Rondo.
Also, I have to say I like the arrangement of the first level music on SNES better. That sparkling guitar arrangement just sounds so good. Rondo has CD audio but somehow it sounds more opaque, mostly because of the arrangement, rather than the sound quality, though.

>>6404634
Completely different physics and incomparably different design philosophy. DX plays almost like a puzzle platformer because of how enemies are placed. Nothing of the sort happens in Rondo.

>>6404637
>puzzle platformer because of how enemies are placed.
Huh? Puzzle platformer like what game for example? When I think of puzzle-platformer, I think of something like Krusty's Fun House, or Puzzle Bobble. How is walking to the right, jumping spike pits and hitting skeletons with a whip until you reach the end of the level puzzle?

>>6404646
The bridge right away is not an action segment but rather a "what the fuck does the game expect from me?" kind of section. Hanging bats are invincible and can't be killed even by subweapons until you jump right at them from very close. Spear knights can't be defeated through reflex: you must learn and follow a mostly arbitrary strategy. Etc. Most of the game is about puzzling out exactly what the developers wanted you to do in that particular singular situation do instead of learning the general rules of the game and applying them later on, like in other Classicvanias.

>>6404673
>Spear knights can't be defeated through reflex: you must learn and follow a mostly arbitrary strategy.
So just like in Rondo. Which is why both Rondo and Dracula X has the moonwalk function, so you can more easily fight knights and spear knights, moving closer then walking back while still being able to whip them.
I don't think puzzle-platformer applies here, really.

>>6404646
>>6404673
Uh, sorry, i didn't unswer your question. Puzzle platformers are games like Flashback and Another World, Abe's Odyssey, Heart of Darkness etc. Games that focus on approach rather than execution. Unlike pure action games, puzzle platformers rarely teach mechanics and instead rely on mechanically arbitrary unique solutions that may or may not follow a higher, real-world logic.

>>6404687
It doesn't truly apply, but many a time DX inches much closer towards a Prince of Persia game than to a Classicvania. The whole design ethos is completely different from RoB, and so are the physics. They're still both classicvanias, sure, but inside the series they are as different as any other two games. In other words, I'm saying that DX and RoB are as dissimilar as, say, RoB and SCV4 or ADx68k.

>>6404694
>>6404705
Hmm ok, I'd call games like PoP cinematic platformers, but I don't really think that applies to DX either. It still plays very much like a classicvania and the level/enemy design is castlevania.
Games like PoP typically have a lot of animation frames that make the characters move/slide a lot, you can also ledge-grab, and generally they're not side-scrollers (the screen doesn't scroll as you walk, you go from screen to screen).

>>6404716
Sure, calling it an outright puzzle (or cinematic) platformer would be incorrect, but my point is these elements make is substantially different from RoB. Not different enough to not be a classicvania, but as different as any classicvania is from Rondo.

OP here, just beat the game and It's actually as good as CV1, disregard this thread

>>6404747
CV1 is a uniquely tight, masterfulyl designed game. SCV4, fun as it is on its own, is the fucking opposite of that. Don't compare one of the ebst action games in hsitory of the medium to a passably cool SNES action game.

>>6404646
Wow! What a pretentious load of horse shit!

>>6404747
Based
>>6404757
Cringe

>God Tier
Pick up the orb in the middle of a backflip on a frame that doesn't look like ass

>Good Tier
Pick up the orb during a jump-whip but as the whip is fully extended

>Bad tier
Fail the later and have a whimsy frail looking whip proof of the state of your penis

>Fail tier
Pick up the orb on the ground walking

>>6403995
>Why does everyone need to have such an extreme opinion of this game. Stop pretending it's the best or the worst thing ever, it all looks fucking silly. It's just an atmospheric romp that's just hard enough for you to pay attention but not hard to the point of having to memorize everything or frustration. It's got a weird rhythm at times, but it just means you have to pay a little attention. Not the best thing ever, not an insult to Castlevania. Just a game that's made to cruise through it and enjoy. You turn the lights off, play it for an afternoon and that's it. It's pleasant and fun for what it is.
Pretty much this. There's a couple of CIV haters that keep coming here like religious zealots to try to convince people that one of the most beloved snes games its and awful mess. Good luck with that.

SCIV being easy doesn't make it a bad game, it just makes it an easy Castlevania. I always thought that SCIV it's more like an eery and melancholic adventure game than a pure hard action platformer like some of the classic games of the series. I' m ok with that, it's just a different taste but some people hate it, and i'ts ok too.

>>6403103
>insanely easy
>i keep dying because it's hard
pick one fgt