/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.6241145]

This game is better than super and rondo.
>but muh alternate paths
Doesn't matter nerd

[Anonymous No.6241148]

>>6241145
>>but muh alternate paths
But Dracula X on SNES does have alternate paths.
I wouldn't say it's better than Rondo or IV personally, but it's a heavily underrated game.
Back in 1995, not many people cared about it simply because it was a traditional 2D game, and everyone wanted 3D at that point.
Nowadays, people shit on it for misinformation about it being a "bad port of Rondo".
But it's still a pretty sought after game, and very expensive, so people still like it I guess. But on the internet it gets a lot of hate for 0 reasons.

[Anonymous No.6241208]

Rondo feels like a 32 bit game on a 16 bit systems that's actually 8 bit. It's in a league beyond the others. tbqhwyf it's the best Castlevania of all

[Anonymous No.6241212]

>>6241208
>Rondo feels like a 32 bit game on a 16 bit systems that's actually 8 bit
wut
No with those basic as fuck backgrounds that are mostly either pitch black like early NES games, or very simple bricks in different colors doesn't make it look even 16-bit to be honest.
Cool spritework, though.

[Anonymous No.6241229]

>>6241145
SNES Dracula X is a hack-job.
Richter animates like Richard fucking Simmons because they cut half of his animation frames from Rondo. He animates twice as fast yet somehow moves at a slower speed across the screen like a geriatric power walker at the mall.

There's goofy shit like this all over the game that proves it was a rush hack-job. So no thanks Nintendo fags, I'd rather play the real version.

[Anonymous No.6241237]

>>6241229
>So no thanks Nintendo fags
Thanks for making it clear that your sole reason for shitting on it is actually console war reasons.
Yes it's true that it has less frames of animation (not really half removed, more like 1/4), but complaining about belmonts in Castlevania walking slowly is kind of weird, you know. Maybe SOTN is more your style?
>I'd rather play the real version.
Rondo and Dracula X are entirely different games other than character and enemy sprites. Whole levels and assets are 100% new, and at least half the bosses are new too (including final boss).
Try again.

[Anonymous No.6241242]

>>6241145
I agree, super Castlevania 4 gets waaaay too much love for what it is. I don't think that it aged as well as Dracula X did.

[Anonymous No.6241246]

>>6241212
16-bit had been around for over 8 years. Wasnt hard to make it 16-bit. Also Rondo is the best Konami game

[Anonymous No.6241247]

>>6241145
Daily reminder that Bloodlines is the only good pre-sotn castlevania. This is objective fact, don't even try to argue.

[Anonymous No.6241249]

Yeah, the whole
>it's just a shitty version of an amazing game we never got to play in the west
thing is dumb and yes, Rondo was overhyped because it was the obscure one, we get it, but let's not go too far with the hyperboles buddy.

[Anonymous No.6241251]

>>6241246
I mean that Rondo of Blood doesn't look 32-bit anything. It is 16-bit, but in backgrounds it's lacking a lot, compared to other games in the series (Dracula X, case in point)
>best Konami game
Eh, acceptable choice but I don't agree. Not even the best Castlevania, although it's around top 5.

[Anonymous No.6241252]

>>6241247
Yes! Once I played Castlevania Bloodlines, I couldn't go back to enjoying Super Castlevania 4.

[Anonymous No.6241253]

>>6241247
I want to like it more, but the dull level design and boring mini-bosses constantly halting the pace makes Bloodlines my least favorite of 4th gen.

[Anonymous No.6241259]

>>6241252
That's sad to hear because the Castlevania IV team helped the Bloodlines team.
And I think that was the last torch passed around from the original Akamatsu team (which advised the IV team), since I don't think any of the IV or Bloodlines guys did any other CV game again.

[Anonymous No.6241261]

>>6241251
Care to say what is the best Konami game?

[Anonymous No.6241264]

>>6241261
>why yes I do think Contra is the best Konami game, what gave it away?

[Anonymous No.6241267]

>>6241145
But muh loli isn't playable so fuck it lmao

[Anonymous No.6241268]

>>6241253
I feel that a lot of people felt that way about Konami produced games on Sega, because each of those games (minus sunset riders) was a completely different game made from scratch. But if you played Castlevania Bloodlines with both characters you still got to see different aspects of the game, and to me that shit was nice.

[Anonymous No.6241272]

>>6241259
Daaaamn, really though? Now that makes me kinda sad too, considering the fact that I loved the Castlevania Bloodlines sequel "Portrait of Ruin" on Nintendo DS

[Anonymous No.6241369]

X>1>bloodlines>3>rondo>super>2

[Anonymous No.6241465]

>>6241251
>It is 16-bit, but in backgrounds it's lacking a lot, compared to other games in the series
Except the Turbo wasn't a true 16 bit machine. Rondo is just bad ass enough to get mistaken for a 16-bit vania.

[Anonymous No.6241473]

>>6241465
>Rondo
Come on now, most PC Engine games look 16-bit, even if the CPU is 8bit, it came out in 1987, just 1 year before the Mega Drive.
Moreover, Rondo is a Super CD-Rom2 game that used a special memory RAM cart if I'm not mistaken, so not even base PC-Engine.

[Anonymous No.6241483]

>>6241251
The CD audio combined with the beauty of the game makes it feel 32-bit.

[Anonymous No.6241487]

>>6241237
>Thanks for making it clear that your sole reason for shitting on it is actually console war reasons.
Terrible Richter animation.
Using the distant background Death sprite in front of the clock face.
Using the map screen castle as the background of the final stage. How the fuck does that even make sense?
Dullahan's entrance animation contains background assets from Rondo. No tile set like that exists in the SNES game. So the Kobe team were probably taking screenshots of Rondo for sprites instead of using source material.
Three headed dog boss makes lion sounds. The fuck?
Just a bunch of shit that points to a quick rush job with no thought or care put into the final product.
So no, being on a Nintendo console isn't my sole reason for disliking the game. But it is the icing on the cake.

[Anonymous No.6241516]

>>6241145
>>6241237
>>6241242
>>6241249
>>6241369
t. contrarian Nintencucks

[Anonymous No.6241528]

>>6241487
>Using the map screen castle as the background of the final stage. How the fuck does that even make sense?
I remember you from previous threads.
You're just nitpicking a few stuff from bosses, and a sound effect. I can also nitpick about how Rondo of Blood has still very lazy background graphics, while Dracula X has a lot of detailed and polished backgrounds. I don't want to shit on Rondo, but just an example of how I can also nitpick some stuff to make one seem better than the other.
The ultimate truth is that Dracula X is a completely new game, and if you're a Rondo fan, you should enjoy Dracula X for maintaining the same gameplay but offering 100% new levels with more challenge.
>So no, being on a Nintendo console isn't my sole reason for disliking the game. But it is the icing on the cake.
Just admit that's the main reason, man. You're obsessed and Nintendo lives absolutely rent free inside of your head.

[Anonymous No.6241561]

>>6241528
>shitty uninspired levels and bosses and cut back animations
>same gameplay but offering 100% new levels with more challenge.
Pick one and only one, Nintencuck.

[Anonymous No.6241568]

>>6241561
>shitty uninspired levels and bosses
[citation needed], or rather, unimportant opinion.
>and cut back animations
but better backgrounds, deal with it.
>Pick one and only one, Nintencuck.
I pick you go back to /v/ where console warriors belong. I grew up with a Mega Drive.

[Anonymous No.6241584]

Can't say I agree but I like the SNES soundfont a lot.

[Anonymous No.6241606]

>>6241528
>Just admit that's the main reason, man.
Not so, but the SNES was definitely the dark age of the series.
Castlevania gets created for the NES. Two excellent games are made, and one overly ambitious one.
Creator of series disappears, never to be seen again.
Konami starts experimenting - introducing the snoozefest that is CV4 which looses the style and vision of the series.
X68000 and Rondo are developed at the same time by two different teams showing that Konami has no idea what to do with Castlevania. Fortunately one of those tries to push the series forward while the other is just another shitty remake.
Bloodlines is developed and is excellent - going forward in a different direction.
Dracula X is developed as another shitty cash grab remake.
Castlevania games fill the bargain bins of Japan, prompting Iga to step in as director and give the series direction.
Iga takes the best game of the 16-bit experimental era (Rondo), and expands it.
Castlevania successfully continues under Iga until he is replaced by Mercury Steam.

So basically, the SNES contributed nothing to the series, and it's games should be either forgotten, or pointed and laughed at as inferior works.

[Anonymous No.6241630]

>>6241606
>Creator of series disappears, never to be seen again.
>Konami starts experimenting
You should study your Castlevania history better. Castlevania IV was developed at the same time as Castlevania III, so the original creator was still around. In fact, his team advised the Castlevania IV team, and why you can also see some CV III cameos on IV, like certain enemies, and the Sypha statue reference.
You aren't really giving any actual arguments as to why you think games like IV, X68K or Dracula X are bad, just "shitty", etc. You're not even inviting to an interesting discussion.
>Bloodlines is developed and is excellent - going forward in a different direction.
And the IV team advised the Bloodlines team, kind of passing the torch from Akamatsu. I guess is why Morris has diagonal whipping, and why the Simon Theme is there in the game (although unused in levels).
Bloodlines is a great game but I don't see how it went on a different direction, it just changed around some iconic stuff, like a boomerang instead of cross, or gems instead of hears, but substantially it's still a Classicvania, nothing really new. And that isn't even a bad thing, either.
>and it's games should be either forgotten, or pointed and laughed at as inferior works.
You can dream, I guess. But the reality is that IV is one of the most popular ones and you'll likely have to deal with it for the rest of your life. But hey, at least zoomers were brainwashed into believing Dracula X is a port of Rondo, so there's that for you.

[Anonymous No.6241649]

>>6241473
It was 8-bit but had 16 bit graphics.
Just like Neo Geo was 16 bit but had 24 bit graphics

[Anonymous No.6241654]

>>6241649
>Just like Neo Geo was 16 bit but had 24 bit graphics
It was more than that. Neo Geo had real life-sized 4-dimensional graphics

[Anonymous No.6241689]

>>6241630
And Kojima "advised" Mercury Steam, but it doesn't make the reboot series Japanese. You put too much stock in who advised who. The direction of the games were largely on the dev teams. CV4 was a remake/SNES tech demo with no real challenge, and if Konami took Dracula X seriously they wouldn't have sent it to Kobe. Rondo and Bloodlines were the only CV games from that era worth playing.

[Anonymous No.6241724]

>>6241689
That kojima comparison was really bizarre. I wasn't implying that because Akamatsu advised the IV team, it means it's an Akamatsu game. If you understood that (judging from your weird kojima analogy), then you should work on your reading comprehension.
I simply mentioned some trivia, as an addition to correcting you about Akamatsu disappearing before konami decided to work on IV. It was developed simultaneously with III.

[Anonymous No.6241732]

>>6241724
You're going to need a source for CV4 being an Akamatsu game. The man had a consistent film reel theme in his CVs. And he had a deliberately specific control style. CV4 had neither.

[Anonymous No.6241735]

>>6241261
Classic Konami series power ranking:
Gradius > Contra > Goemon > Castlevania

[Anonymous No.6241737]

>>6241732
>I wasn't implying that...

[Anonymous No.6241738]

>>6241735
>power rankings

[Anonymous No.6241760]

>>6241735
Yeah that first one is a R-type rip

[Anonymous No.6241761]

>>6241737
>I wasn't implying that...
Dude, you just said:
>Akamatsu advised the IV team, it means it's an Akamatsu game.
But no, it isn't an Akamatsu game unless you have a source saying otherwise.
And I'm not interested in who advised who. That doesn't mean much. I'm interested in who actually developed the game.
The SNES Castlevanias were clearly just bad remakes. And Akamatsu had little to no involvement on 4.

[Anonymous No.6241762]

>>6241760
your dumb

[Anonymous No.6241792]

>>6241762
Your...dont you mean You’re?

[Anonymous No.6241818]

>>6241516
Sega (Castlevania Bloodlines) fan here but good try. Separate your feels please.

[Anonymous No.6241981]

>>6241761
I guess you're blatantly baiting at this point, but I literally said "I wasn't implying that because Akamatsu advised the IV team, it means it's an Akamatsu game". Read my post again.
Anti-IV guys are something else.

[Anonymous No.6241982]

>>6241606
>snoozefest that is CV4
>X68000 is a shitty remake
I hope you die

[Anonymous No.6242702]

>>6241145
okay Smashbabby

[Anonymous No.6242754]

Take your meds austranny.

[Anonymous No.6242760]

Does the Rondo+SoTN collection on PS4/XBONE consist of genuine ports or is it an emulation collection?

[Anonymous No.6242787]

>>6242760
Emulation, they're taken from the Dracula X Chronicles pack on PSP, but without the actual Rondo remake.
>>6242702
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.6242845]

>>6241981
Yeah, was playing Sekiro at the time of writing. But why even bring that point up then.
So a boring remake is developed by separate people from CV3, but at the same time, so that makes it non-experimental? It clearly was. The game is a breeze, and poses no challenge. The original music is either down-tempo crap, or weird jazz style nonsense. And the controls are loose instead of tight and deliberate. No multiple characters, or optional paths like in 3. Just a tech-demo remake.
Rondo was the true successor of the NES games.
CV4 might have seemed good for first time console buyers, but was a major disappointment for fans of the originals.
It was basically a casual Castlevania for a new audience.

[Anonymous No.6242849]

>>6241982
So you can feel better about playing crappier versions of a much better game? Nah...

[Anonymous No.6242862]

>>6242845
Yeah,you've sang this song before many times. You hate the game.
You have no arguments though. Saying words like "crap", "nonsense" or "casual" is not convincing anyone. And if anything, at this point since you've outed yourself as a blatant console warrior who puts brands into play, why even bother at this point?
if you did like Australia-kun, who actually defends games that are harder than IV, like Haunted Castle, then at least you'd have some consistency, but Rondo? It's an easy game. If anything, if you're into challenge, you should like Dracula X, but you don't because it's on Nintendo lol.
But remember this: your opinion is highly unpopular regarding Castlevania IV. Fans of Castlevania like it, it's one of the most popular classic titles, and it will continue to be.

[Anonymous No.6242863]

>>6242787
Got it. Were the versions included in DXC on PSP also emulation (of PS1 and PC-engine in this case) or were they native ports?

[Anonymous No.6242869]

>>6242845
>Yeah, was playing Sekiro at the time of writing.
Is Sekiro that boring that people shitpost on 4chan while playing it?

[Anonymous No.6242909]

>>6242862
>You have no arguments though.
I gave you several, you just choose to ignore them. Do I have to repeat myself? "The game is a breeze, and poses no challenge. The original music is either down-tempo crap, or weird jazz style nonsense. And the controls are loose instead of tight and deliberate. No multiple characters, or optional paths like in 3."
I could easily elaborate on everyone of those points, plus more.
>if you're into challenge, you should like Dracula X
I do like the challenge of Dracula X, but it was a cash grab attempt and felt like a cheaper version. It's not a all around quality title like 1, 3, Rondo, or Bloodlines. Challenge is one of many factors that makes a game, and while Rondo isn't as hard as Dracula X, it still has a decent level of challenge - unlike 4 - and feels like a more consistent game
>But remember this: your opinion is highly unpopular regarding Castlevania IV. Fans of Castlevania like it, it's one of the most popular classic titles, and it will continue to be.
Yeah... Yeah... If I gave a shit about what was popular, I'd trade all my metal albums for Nickelback ones. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it good. Lords Of Shadow is the best selling Castlevania game of all time, so by your logic, does that mean it's the best?

[Anonymous No.6242945]

>>6242909
>I could easily elaborate on everyone of those points, plus more.
And it would absolutely just be more adjectives like "crap" instead of actual arguments.
All of your opinions are subjective and rather unpopular, except for your notation on IV not having multiple characters or optional paths, which doesn't make it a bad game like you want it to be.
Anyway, even if you kept vomiting about how much you hate the game, it still boils down to your opinion, not hard facts.
>I do like the challenge of Dracula X, but it was a cash grab attempt and felt like a cheaper version
Well, at least you stepped back a bit now, but you were saying Dracula X should not be played at all, now at least you admit to like something about it, heh.
>If I gave a shit about what was popular
You clearly do yeah, you seem to have an anti-IV agenda. I wonder if you somehow have some sort of fantasy about influencing people or something lol.
>Lords Of Shadow is the best selling Castlevania game of all time, so by your logic, does that mean it's the best?
Nah I never implied that, I was just correcting you on "it was a major disappointment for castlevania fans". IV was well liked, and you will have to deal with it, or ignore it. Your choice.

[Anonymous No.6242970]

>>6242945
>your opinions are subjective
As are yours and everything on this entire board.
>and rather unpopular
Don't care.
>it still boils down to your opinion, not hard facts.
So are you here to talk about games? Or just call everyone subjective? Because that's incredibly lazy. Like I said, everything here is subjective. If you have a problem with that, you should find something else to do.
>Well, at least you stepped back a bit now, but you were saying Dracula X should not be played at all
Not stepping back. I enjoyed the challenge of Dracula X, but ultimately the game isn't worth playing for other reasons. There are better games to spend time with, so if I was given the option to re-live Dracula X, I wouldn't bother.
>I wonder if you somehow have some sort of fantasy about influencing people or something lol.
Yeah. I totally have a fantasy of influencing popular opinion. That's why I'm this obscure image board.
>IV was well liked, and you will have to deal with it. Your choice.
Well like by SNES fans, not necessarily Castlevania fans. But yeah, I guess I'll have to choose. Man... The decision to deal with or ignore the popularity of Super Castlevania 4 will be hard, but I'm sure it will be a major milestone in my life. Hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.6242971]

>>6241630
>I guess is why Morris has diagonal whipping
Diagonal whipping was planned for Castlevania 1.

[Anonymous No.6242981]

At this point, make sure to tell us if you two ever get to fuck: it would be a fitting end for a troubled love story like yours.

[Anonymous No.6243006]

>>6242970
>As are yours and everything on this entire board.
I'm not really giving any opinions of my own so far, though. I just corrected you on some wrong information you posted, and then just stayed because I think your IV hateboner if kind of cute.
>So are you here to talk about games?
Sure am, but it gets boring when the other party's only arguments are childish console wars and calling everything "crap"
>Well like by SNES fans, not necessarily Castlevania fans
Nah just fans of Castlevania or video games in general. You're still on that console warrior mindset and can't get out of it.

[Anonymous No.6243021]

I don't like SC IV either. Ignoring the secondary complaints like underwhelming soundtrack, and muddy overdetailed visuals my main issue is the combat. Most enemies can be killed from completely outside their threat zone by just whipping them from another platform. When you had a bone pillar or axe armor at the top of the stairs in CV 1/3 that could be an actual threat, but in SC IV you just kill them from safety.
The only enemies that do more than slow you down are ones that ambush you from off screen, but killing them is mostly a matter of mashing the whip button and holding in their direction. There's no real fight in IV like you can get in the hallway to death in 1 where there's any sort of back and forth dodging and attacking.

On top of that in 1/3 every input has to be properly timed, and being too early or too late with your attack/jump will get you badly punished. IV's controls don't require the same commitment to your actions that 1 and 3 do.

[Anonymous No.6243034]

>>6243021
>There's no real fight in IV like you can get in the hallway to death in 1 where there's any sort of back and forth dodging and attacking.
To be fair there's very few moments like that in the series in general, which is why CV1 and the death hall is so memorable.
I think nobody will argue CV4 is harder than 3 (although some would argue the later levels of 4 are harder than anything on 1), but to be honest, not counting X68000 and Dracula X SNES, the other 16-bit output wasn't as challenging as the NES games, that's not some hot take or anything, it was always known.

[Anonymous No.6243038]

>>6243021
>and holding in their direction.
doing that results in bats or jumping enemies knocking you back and may cause dying by falling on a pit. just holding the whip will cause like half or 1/3 damage, it has to be a well-timed direct hit in order to kill the bats in one hit.

[Anonymous No.6243040]

>>6243006
>I'm not really giving any opinions of my own so far
Well... I mean, do you don't have any?
>I just corrected you on some wrong information you posted
Wait... Weren't you just saying I was completely subjective? The only thing you attempted to "correct" me on was how experimental CV4 was. Except you didn't correct shit. Everything else you said was about popularity and muh "subjective".
>party's only arguments are childish console wars
The fuck? I see that if anyone criticizes a game, you'll just ignore (your everything is "crap" argument), call subjective, and bring up some console war shit that no is even talking about.
>You're still on that console warrior mindset.
No. SNES was shit for Castlevania, but incredible for Mega Man. I'm not bring up the SNES itself, just the two CVs on it. And they were not good for all the reasons stated above that you've been ignoring this entire time.

[Anonymous No.6243054]

>>6243034
There's nothing outside of a couple bosses in 4 that compares to even fighting a single axe armor on a flat plane, ducking under the high throws, neutral jumping over the low ones, while advancing forward to hit him yourself.
>>6243038
You can absolutely mash, the whip is so fast that there's very little chance of them getting past, and the held whip stunlocks them if you wiggle it at them. It's far far easier to deal with a medusa head in IV even if just jumping over it.

[Anonymous No.6243058]

>>6243034
There are just a couple difficult platforming sections at the end of very boring enemy sections in the late stages of 4. And they tend to catch you off guard because everything before them was so easy. Admittedly I find Dracula quite a bit harder in 4 than in 1/3. Though the run-up in the western release of 3 after each death I think makes it the hardest depending on character choice.

[Anonymous No.6243060]

>>6243040
>Well... I mean, do you don't have any?
I do but so far I didn't have an opportunity to share my personal opinions ITT.
>Wait... Weren't you just saying I was completely subjective?
No, I said that you dropped some misinformation (about Akamatsu leaving before IV was made, you were wrong about that), and you also mentioned a few things that aren't opinions (such as IV not having alternate paths, etc). Everything else was, though.
>and bring up some console war shit that no is even talking about.
Let's see your first post:
>>6241229
>So no thanks Nintendo fags
Or this another one:
>So no, being on a Nintendo console isn't my sole reason for disliking the game. But it is the icing on the cake.
It may not be your sole "reason", but it is a factor and you admitted it.

[Anonymous No.6243063]

>>6243054
>It's far far easier to deal with a medusa head in IV even if just jumping over it.
Medusa heads were never as threatening as they were in CV1.
Bloodlines and Rondo's medusas are a complete joke as well.

[Anonymous No.6243083]

>>6243060
>I do but so far I didn't have an opportunity to share my personal opinions ITT
Well, let us know when you grow a pair. Damn...
>Akamatsu leaving before IV was made, you were wrong about that
Inconsequential to my initial point of the inferiority of the SNES CVs, considering he had little to no involvement on 4. Plus CV4 development started in 1989 - the year CV3 was released in Japan. So by that time he had already moved on to working on his final game - Snake's Revenge on MSX. By that point he had left Castlevania, then the industry altogether.
>It may not be your sole "reason", but it is a factor and you admitted it.
Yes, I don't care much for the SNES hardware, but that doesn't make me a "console warrior". In fact, the "Nintendo fags" comment was in reference to the console warrior mindset many Nintendo fans adopt.

[Anonymous No.6243098]

>>6243083
>Well, let us know when you grow a pair. Damn...
Huh? I don't need to post my opinions online to feel like I have my pair in its place lol.
>Inconsequential to my initial point of the inferiority of the SNES CVs
Yeah, I wasn't talking about your opinions on the SNES CVs, I just mentioned the Akamatsu bit because it was one of the few parts in your posts that wasn't opinions, even if it was wrong, you tried to add some historical context. So no, I never implied "everything" you said is subjective, you also dropped some other facts, as I already mentioned.
>In fact, the "Nintendo fags" comment was in reference to the console warrior mindset many Nintendo fans adopt.
Okay but... what Nintendo fans? OP even shitted on IV, so what was your reasoning for lashing out against console warriors? In the end, you ended up being the console warrior in the thread.

[Anonymous No.6243112]

>>6243098
So you're basically a fact-bot. Riveting....
>so what was your reasoning for lashing out against console warriors
Basically inb4. This is 4chan after all, lol.

[Anonymous No.6243116]

>>6241981
Fascinating. Now, provide a source as you’ve been asked twice.

[Anonymous No.6243117]

>>6243112
>So you're basically a fact-bot. Riveting....
I can post my opinions too, I just didn't see the need to do it ITT so far.
>Basically inb4. This is 4chan after all, lol.
What does "This is 4chan after all" means in this context? Also I don't see the fabled Nintendo fags ITT, just the usual Castlevania shitflinging, and so far you're the only one with a console war mindset.

[Anonymous No.6243118]

>>6243116
About Akamatsu still being in Konami while CV IV was being developed? Sure.

[Anonymous No.6243123]

>>6243117
>you're the only one with a console war mindset.
Except I don't.
>What does "This is 4chan after all" means in this context?
You must be new here.

[Anonymous No.6243127]

>>6243118
Ueno sounds pretty unsure in that source. Basically, "Oh, we started in 1990, no... 1988. The sound team was there. I don't fucking know."

[Anonymous No.6243139]

>>6243127
He's unsure about the year, not the fact both CV III and IV were developed at the same time.

[Anonymous No.6243149]

>>6243139
"I'm not too sure though. It was more that 20 years ago!"
Yeah... Not very conclusive.

[Anonymous No.6243154]

>>6243139
>were developed at the same time.
"developed almost in parallel"
So was is developed at the same time, or almost the same time?
Because it sounds like Ueno has no clue.

[Anonymous No.6243157]

>>6243149
>But then he had a revelation: "CVIII on the Famicom was developed almost in parallel with CVIV, by the same people behind CV and CVII".
I don't get it though, what are you trying to do?

[Anonymous No.6243158]

>>6243154
Almost in parallel: at one point they were both being developed at the same time, just not exactly the exact same starting and ending date.
Come on it's not hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.6243159]

It's true. Dracula X SNES knows how to use enemy placements and screen space with pits and stage obstacles in the vein of CV3, unlike Rondo where every level is series of flat plains with different enemy placements and arbitrarily placed spawn points for infinite hordes. Dark Shaft is the only point it has against the SNES version.

>>6241272
Super CV4 was developed by a team of people that would go on to help form Treasure, if you were curious what they worked on after.

[Anonymous No.6243168]

>>6243159
>Super CV4 was developed by a team of people that would go on to help form Treasure
I think it was just Yaipon/Yaiman, who was a major part of CV IV, programming Simon's gameplay. It's interesting how the guy loves 8-way action, as you can see on Gunstar Heroes and Bangai-O.

[Anonymous No.6243174]

>>6243158
Not convinced. Ueno goes back and forth, then finally claims it was 20 years ago, so he's not sure. There may have been a possibility that the sound team overlapped since they had to rework the CV3 soundtrack for a later US release due to lack of MMC5 sound channels. Need a stronger source.

[Anonymous No.6243175]

>>6243118
>Ueno proudly declares, "I wanted to make CVIV a pure action game without any RPG elements, similar to the original CV"
What a based man.

[Anonymous No.6243180]

>>6243083
>Snake's Revenge on MSX
You mean NES, I hope.

[Anonymous No.6243189]

>>6243180
Yeah, I get the MSX and NES ones mixed up. Not much of a Metal Gear fan, so I don't play them.

[Anonymous No.6243201]

>>6243174
Alright but considering Ueno is the guy who was actually there and not you, I'll choose to believe him.
He just seems unsure about the exact year, but he seems confident in remembering the CV III team, even going as far as being the first time someone confirmed the first 3 games were done by the same team.

[Anonymous No.6243216]

>>6243201
>Alright but considering Ueno is the guy who was actually there and not you, I'll choose to believe him.
Yeah, none of us were there. But you're going to need a stronger source if you want to convince anyone of your claim. The fact that Ueno specifically mentions the sound team, makes me think that CV3 was done by the time CV4 development started. And the US localization of CV3 is what actually overlapped.
You can believe a man who is clearly not sure, but until a better source that clears up the uncertainty is brought forth, you simply can't claim this as fact.

[Anonymous No.6243226]

>>6243216
>But you're going to need a stronger source if you want to convince anyone of your claim.
I'm not the anon you're replying to, and I'm convinced. Pretty much no one remembers exact dates 20 years after the fact, the difference with that magazine quote is that Ueno is honest about it unlike other developers. He remembers the broad strokes; that is, the development of CV4 being more or less in tandem with CV3 and that's good enough for me. In lieu of evidence to the contrary, this is acceptable and I'll be sharing that magazine article with my brother, who is a much bigger CV fan than I am.

[Anonymous No.6243231]

>>6243226
>I'm not the anon you're replying to, and I'm convinced.
Fine, as long as you admit it's through sheer faith.

[Anonymous No.6243243]

>>6243216
>You can believe a man who is clearly not sure
He seems sure about the fact both games development overlapped, as he even mentioned a detail about the team that nobody else in the west knew until that point, that is, the fact CV1-3 were all developed by the same team.
If it was just a vague "uuuh yeahhh I don't remember anything at all, I vaguely remember some sound team" as you claim it reads (it doesn't), then yeah I'd concede. But the guy is clearly pretty sure about the CVIII team being there, just not about the exact numbered year, which is what matters the least.

[Anonymous No.6243273]

>>6243243
>he even mentioned a detail about the team that nobody else in the west knew until that point, that is, the fact CV1-3 were all developed by the same team
The article is from 2010 at the earliest. By that time it was no mystery that the same team developed CV1-3.
>But the guy is clearly pretty sure about the CVIII team being there
He's not sure of anything. Literally says, "I am not sure though. It was more than 20 years ago!". And he specifically mentions the sound team that had to stay past the completion of CV3 to rework the tracks due to the US NES not supporting the sound hardware used in the original game.

[Anonymous No.6243287]

>>6243231
I think just about every developer quote is accepted through sheer faith when it comes to games form this era.
>>6243273
>Literally says, "I am not sure though. It was more than 20 years ago!"
Let's not take that out of context. He says he's not too sure (the "too" is important to the meaning of the quote, by the way) about the development of the game starting in 1989.

[Anonymous No.6243330]

>>6241760
R-Type came after Gradius btw
Gradius was released in 85, R-Type in 87

[Anonymous No.6243342]

>>6243287
>Let's not take that out of context. He says he's not too sure (the "too" is important to the meaning of the quote, by the way) about the development of the game starting in 1989.
Nothing is out of context. The man's not sure. The article was supposed to prove that CV3 and 4 were developed at the same time, but for all the reasons I've already stated above, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6243349]

>>6243342
>for all the reasons I've already stated above
what reasons? that he said "I don't remember the specific year"?
He may not even remember when CV III was released either. But he remembers the team working there as he was developing CV IV. He isn't unsure about that.
I know I won't change your mind, because you DON'T want the games to have had an overlap development, but you're going a bit too far.

[Anonymous No.6243360]

>>6243349
>what reasons?
Instead of repeating myself. I'll just copy/paste what I've already said in hopes it will be understood this time.
"The fact that Ueno specifically mentions the sound team, makes me think that CV3 was done by the time CV4 development started. And the US localization of CV3 is what actually overlapped.
You can believe a man who is clearly not sure, but until a better source that clears up the uncertainty is brought forth, you simply can't claim this as fact."
>you DON'T want the games to have had an overlap development
I'll believe it, if you have a source that confirms this to be fact. So where is it?

[Anonymous No.6243396]

>>6243360
Well, it's your word against his'.
He clearly remembers the CVIII team and isn't doubtful about that, just the year.
Anyway, not to be moving goalposts, but we're having this discussion because you implied Akamatsu left Konami before IV was released, but he was in fact still at Konami in 1991. Even without the Ueno interview, we know that Akamatsu worked on a few more games before leaving for good.

[Anonymous No.6243546]

>>6243396
>He clearly remembers the CVIII team
Definitely not "clearly".
>you implied Akamatsu left Konami before IV was released
Not so. In the scope of Castlevania, CV3 was Akamatsu's last CV game before disappearing.
Outside of Castlevania, he worked on Snake's Revenge immediately after CV3's completion. This isn't relevant to CV, so no point in stating it.
At that point his involvement in the series was done, and he disappeared soon after.
There's still no concrete evidence that he had any involvment CV4.

[Anonymous No.6243839]

> Make watered down Drac X version for SNES in the US
> Just to fuck with the US audiences the floor is different sized pillars during the Dracula fight.

This will never not be funny to me.

[Anonymous No.6243857]

>>6243546
>Definitely not "clearly".
Yeah, clearly. He seems doubtful about the year, if it was 89 or 90, but he clearly remembers the CV III team without a doubt, even going as far as to give the detail of them being the same guys from CV I and II. If you have any source that confirmed this before this interview with Ueno, I'd like to see it.
>This isn't relevant to CV, so no point in stating it.
Well, that's not what you said:
>>6241606
>Creator of series disappears, never to be seen again.
>Konami starts experimenting
At least now you rectify yourself by saying "and he disappeared soon after." so at least there's that.
>There's still no concrete evidence that he had any involvment CV4.
Fair enough, but there is evidence about Akamatsu still being around Konami even after IV was released.

[Anonymous No.6243998]

>>6241516
signing your posts with a
>t.

[Anonymous No.6244002]

>>6243857
>he clearly remembers the CV III team without a doubt
I guess I'll be copy pasting shit I've already said from now on. Easy enough.
"The fact that Ueno specifically mentions the sound team, makes me think that CV3 was done by the time CV4 development started. And the US localization of CV3 is what actually overlapped."
So of course he remembers people who worked on CV3. The games shared a sound team, which Ueno states in the article.
>Well, that's not what you said
Except that's exactly what I said. We're talking about Castlevania, right? Or do you want to go off topic, and bring Snake's Revenge into the picture for no reason? Because that actually WAS actually developed concurrently with CV4. Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with Castlevania, much like Akamatsu's involvement with the series at that point.
>there is evidence about Akamatsu still being around Konami even after IV was released.
I'd like to see a source for Akamatsu's employment with Konami after October 31, 1991. But know it won't help your argument. The fact remains that Akamatsu disappeared, and never worked on a Castlevania game past CV3.

[Anonymous No.6244056]

>>6244002
Fine, I'll copypaste myselt too.
>"The fact that Ueno specifically mentions the sound team, makes me think that CV3 was done by the time CV4 development started. And the US localization of CV3 is what actually overlapped."
"he seems confident in remembering the CV III team, even going as far as being the first time someone confirmed the first 3 games were done by the same team."
then you said:
>>6243273
>The article is from 2010 at the earliest. By that time it was no mystery that the same team developed CV1-3.
And I asked for source on that.
The fact both teams worked with the Kukeiha Club is nothing surprising, and you're only guessing about the US localization (which still would be made by Akamatsu's team)
>Except that's exactly what I said. We're talking about Castlevania, right?
Your original implication was that Akamatsu disappeared before Konami started "experimenting" with IV, but whatever.
>I'd like to see a source for Akamatsu's employment with Konami after October 31, 1991. But know it won't help your argument
I don't really need to defend "my" argument, because I'm simply quoting Ueno himself.
He was unsure about the year, not the fact the CV III team were still together.

[Anonymous No.6244240]

>>6244056
>he seems confident in remembering the CV III team, even going as far as being the first time someone confirmed the first 3 games were done by the same team
He doesn't seem confident in anything. You're completely ignoring the fact he specifically mentions the sound team which would have still been at work on CV3 USA after Akamatsu had completed the Japanese version. Ueno had no involvement with CV3, but probably saw work being done on the localization while Akamatsu had moved on to Snake's Revenge.
Come back with a more concrete source.
>And I asked for source on that.
And what would it prove about CV3 and 4 having concurrent development?
>Your original implication Akamatsu disappeared before Konami started "experimenting" with IV
At that point, his involvement in Castlevania was done, and he disappeared soon after. There is absolutely no proof he had any involvement in CV4. My initial post you're forming this dumb argument on was referencing the scope of Castlevania only.
>He was unsure about the year, not the fact the CV III team were still together.
If this article was a court testimony, it would be deemed completely inconclusive.
Either come back with a better source or leave it up to conjecture.
I mean... Fuck it. I'll even help you. Track down a copy of Micom BASIC magazine - August 1993, scan the full eight page article referencing the development of Castlevania, then come back with the information.

[Anonymous No.6244254]

>they are still going
Just fuck already

[Anonymous No.6244473]

>>6244240
I'll just paste myself once again:
"The fact both teams worked with the Kukeiha Club is nothing surprising, and you're only guessing about the US localization (which still would be made by Akamatsu's team)"
I have posted a source, you are the one needing another strong source to counter Ueno himself. So you go and find that Micom BASIC magazine and scan it, it might help your argument. Ueno's argument doesn't need help so far, he was clear enough even if he wasn't sure if the year was 1989 or 1990. And please stop bringing up the Kukeiha Club thing, that's just you making your own conclusions, contradicting what Ueno is saying, there is no mention of any US localization in there, and Ueno speficially refers to the CV I-III team, okay? Come back with the scans/source or stop replying.

[Anonymous No.6245026]

>>6244473
>Ueno's argument doesn't need help so far
It absolutely does. His statements were incredibly shaky, and you've failed to recognize that. Why? Because you're so biased in your position you're willing to twist uncertainties into facts.
I'm taking the position that CV3 and 4 being developed concurrently is not likely, but may have been possible.
You're taking the position that this is fact, but all you've done to prove your point is to bring up an article where a key person admits several times he's not that sure. Not good enough considering the required Japanese effort in CV3's sound localization.
You've proven nothing, and until a concrete source comes forth (which your article isn't), it's entirely conjecture.
But if you still want to claim this as fact, the burden of proof lies on you. Come back with a more concrete source.

[Anonymous No.6247384]

SotNiggers and Igafags blown the fuck out LMAO!

[Anonymous No.6247387]

>>6247384
I'm proud of myself that I never watched any of that pajet Castlevania shit.
Everyone was saying "yeah, it's not really a faithful adaptation... but it's good!" nah, I knew it was shit even from an animation standpoint.
I'll just keep watching Vampire Hunter D (1985) whenever I want to see some castlevania-ish animation.
>>6245026
I've been reading your whole convo and holy shit you are retarded

[Anonymous No.6247401]

>>6247384
I blame Kojima’s art for the homophication of the series.

[Anonymous No.6247406]

>>6247384
I blame Kojima’s art for the homofication of the series.

[Anonymous No.6247426]

Castlekiddies everyone.

[Anonymous No.6247429]

>>6241261
Rocket Knight Adventures.

[Anonymous No.6247430]

>>6247426
Ah, a mature gamer walks among us. Watch out, fellow castlekids.

[Anonymous No.6247626]

>>6247384
based Netflix doing an accurate Alucard (massive fruit)

[Anonymous No.6247750]

>>6247384
Nothing is manlier than making another man submit to your dick.

[Anonymous No.6247762]

>>6247750
Being the one who submits is pretty fucking gay tho.

[Anonymous No.6249193]

>>6241145
I like Super's atmosphere way more, though I like Rondo too.

[Anonymous No.6251420]

>>6241145
How?

[Anonymous No.6251534]

>>6247387
>I've been reading your whole convo and holy shit you are retarded

>Willing to believe someone who only produces one incredibly weak source without citation.
>"Hur... Dur... You're retarded."

[Anonymous No.6251541]

>>6241145
This was the first Castlevania I ever played, SotN was the second.

It took a real long time before I went back and gave the rest of the series a fair shot. Really bad introduction, the stage design is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6251543]

I liked Simon's Quest and beat it without nintendo power.

[Anonymous No.6251728]

>>6251534
It's beyond just the developer interview thing (which you're still wrong about, grasping at straws like a desperate man), it's your whole attitude the whole thread. You are probably one of the main reasons Castlevania threads on here are usually shit.

[Anonymous No.6252056]

>>6251728
Cry harder.

[Anonymous No.6252350]

IV haters on full force.

[Anonymous No.6253585]

>>6251543
I finished it as kid without guides and not knowing English at all... I still wonder how I did it.

[Anonymous No.6254062]

hey fags what do you think of castlevania3. I heard it isn't completely linear, will I miss shit if I don't do a little googling? the only classic castlevanias ive finished are 1 and 4. I heard its hard too. how much harder is 3 than those games

[Anonymous No.6254302]

>>6254062
US version is really fucking stupid, JP version is OK is on par with CV1 only slightly harder at some moments. Don't google, just play it.

[Anonymous No.6254337]

>>6254302
now ill feel like a pussy playing the jap version, SHIT

[Anonymous No.6254348]

>>6254302
>Don't google, just play it
you cant miss bosses/party members? getting halfway through the game and realising I missed sypha would be not a cool.

[Anonymous No.6254470]

>>6254062
The best game in the series. Great visuals, great level design, great music.

It honestly isn't that much harder in any section than 1, it just has way more levels so its that much harder to beat.

Difficulty is based on the path you choose, as well. Sylpha is the easiest paths, then Grant, then Alucard.

[Anonymous No.6254483]

>>6254470
>Difficulty is based on the path you choose, as well. Sylpha is the easiest paths, then Grant, then Alucard.
oh you can only get one of those characters per playthough? Id need to play through the game 3 times to get to play each character? I always thought you got all of them and swapped out whenever you wanted

[Anonymous No.6254560]

>>6254483
You can get multiple characters per playthrough, depending on path (I think only taking Grant first), but taking a new character permanently replaces the old.

Remember, it is an NES game. Probably not enough memory to keep all 3.

[Anonymous No.6254564]

>>6254348
Just adds to the replayability. You can't have them all anyways

[Anonymous No.6254568]

>>6254560
I see. Thanks. Might have to try it out soon. One of the games I know the least about in the series, should be fun.

[Anonymous No.6254709]

>>6241654
I can see why the Neo Geo was a hard sell, god damn. I always knew it was expensive, but seeing it listed out in an ad like that makes it look insane. It's hard to get excited about paying $650 on a console to be able to play Ninja Combat ($200).